I'm indeed a "newbee" to this thread. And boy, what a thread!
The problem is that your post only makes me NOT want to invest in ADVR.
Let's see, Reticulose was discovered in the 30s to treat mumps, used in the 50s and 60s to treat, among other things, herpes zoster, and, in the 90s is supposed to be an Aids drug! Pardon me for being ignorant, but how can such a wonder drug stay such a secret for more than 60 years?
You then talk about how the FDA has never approved Reticulose. Even given that Reticulose did not qualify under the grandfather clause of 1960, we're talking more than 35 years. You further go on to say that the FDA has placed ADVR's application "on hold". Talk about a red flag. Indeed, a little research shows that the application was, in reality, yanked away:
gopher.hivnet.org:70/0/newsgroups/data/5424
As for the treatment of Aids, every _independent_ source I check has concluded that Reticulose is ineffective against it. For example:
immunet.org
I hate to say it, but this thread reads more like a religion than an objective discussion of facts. Unless you were miraculously cured by Reticulose, I can only guess that you truly believe in the company and, like all the faithful, "just want to get the word out". That's admirable but you have only succeeded in shooting yourself in the foot, sad to say.
I have read many other "negative" comments by others on this thread and, although they can be quite raucous, they are quite effective in keeping people, like me, from investing in ADVR and thus keeping your stock down in the dumps. Worse yet, my research indicates that people like Shawn Murphy and S. Martin have the facts on their side.
To be honest, ADVR looks like a stock that might be pulled at any moment by the SEC. I see no evidence that Reticulose is not the snake oil of the 90s. Shawn Murphy didn't convince me, you did. I don't think you had that in mind.
- Jeff |
