tom,
i saw the article last week. this was my response on yahoo.
The writer, E. Schonfeld, tries to cast doubt on Crossen's credibility by citing that his PH.D is in english literature,not medicine. Is he suggesting that Crossen can not legitimately call himself Dr. If Schonfeld were a real journalist, he would not even attempt to confuse the readers with such a specious argument.
In this months premiere issue of Brills Content, The Independent Voice of the Information Age, of the 13 top Science and Medical Reporters (Medical editor ABC News, The Washington Post, USA Today, LATimes, The New York Times, NBC news, The Philadelphia Enquirer. CBS News,... need I go on), only 6 had advanced degrees in medicine or the sciences, and 5 of them had degrees ONLY in English literature or Journalism (pg. 86). SO WHAT DISQUALIFIES CROSSEN FROM HAVING AN OPINION AND BEING ABLE TO DO RESEARCH?
Furthermore, Schonfeld,seems to feel that reviving a Baboon is no big deal? Wow! How many times has this been done before? BioTime certainly should certainlycelebrate this a a major milestone.
Come on, you assensio paid flunkie.... you're even going to accuse Crossen. alone for picking bad biotech stocks this year. Barrons a few weeks ago had a cover article on how bad this year has been for all the Biotech stocks. I would challenge you to followanother biotech analyst and tell me how they did this year?
Longs... this article is further proof, the shorts are getting really nervous and these acts of desperation are fairly transparent. |
