Claud: Your comments continue to be irrational, fallacious and specious. Now that the market is closed, I'll take the time to address this. Once only. After that, you will need to find someone else to pester.
1: There is no post in which I recall "endorsing" a PFE analyst. Your persistent claim that I have endorsed a PFE analyst is fallacious.
2: I do post news items from time to time, but that in itself doesn't constitute endorsement of all or part of the contents. The items are posted because of their relevance and interest to the thread. While it's not impossible that some analysts are accurate; I just can't think of any such examples right now. Stock analysts are rarely accurate, in my opinion.
3: The "analysts" who were referred to by the author in the article Dauntless posted appear to be industry stock analysts, not medical analysts nor chemical analysts. As has been discussed in this thread often, their opinion is incorrect -- based on the medical opinions of physicians whom I know personally, some physicians who have posted here, and based on the reference cited here, of the PDR.
It was industry analysts (stock market analysts) who were being quoted by the author of that article. The CEO of SGP did not say that Vasomax has fewer side effects. The author of the article cited "analysts" as having said that. Had the CEO of SGP made such a statement he would have quoted testing and medical evidence; he would not have quoted industry analysts.
4: Dauntless intentionally misrepresented the SGP CEO as having said that there were fewer side effects in Vasomax. It was not the CEO who was being quoted at that point in that article; it was anonymous analysts being quoted by the author of the article. That author did not even query the CEO to determine if that was an accurate statement!
5: You both seem intent upon wasting my time, and the time of the thread, on trivial argumentation. My best advice is that you move on.
Linda |
