Testy, testy!
First of all, I am not an undergraduate, I am a graduate student (Ph.D.) in neuroscience -- a big difference. Next time read the posts a little more carefully! I was having a purely scientific discussion with the scientist in question, and as a PhD student, I am a colleague of this scientist. I brought up the possibility of using innate tolerance mechanisms to combat MS, and he then told me about AIMM and their experiments, and how their results were unfortunately not statistically significant. He also mentioned that the results weren't announced yet but he found the info out from a friend who is a researcher at AIMM (once again, Bill, read the post -- I didn't talk to a resarcher at AIMM, I talked to a colleague of his that works at my university). So please explain to me why this scientist would not know this information or promulgate it. As far as he was concerned, we were talking SCIENCE, not BUSINESS. And you can bet your ass that any researcher working inside the company would have full knowledge of the results of the trials. I know -- I have worked as a researcher inside a pharmaceutical company, and we knew everything that was going on -- if not officially, then privately through friends. Moreover, medical ethics do not preclude the divulgence of ongoing information on a clinical trial. *Business* ethics, perhaps, but not medical.
However, as I mentioned in a previous post, there is a chance that the info that I have may not necessarily translate into a downward movement of the stock price. I never found out exactly was statistically insignificant in the trials. Perhaps the researcher meant that a total cure was stat. insig. I am betting that whatever AIMM is trying to test is stat. insig.
The only basis I have for the cash flow comments were previous postings in this thread. You may be correct about this -- this is not my domain. My domain is the science, and the information I have suggests that it is flawed.
The hostile tone of your post is simply uncalled for, Bill. I am simply doing small investors a favour by letting them know my info. I have profited from inside info given on other sites before, and I am just returning this favour. I think you should seriously re-evaluate why you are investing in this company. It is funny that you mention "hype" and advise investors to check out their web site -- AIMM hypes up their company to an unrealistic level, given the info that I have on their phase III's. Are your emotions interfering with your investment judgement? I advise everyone to lurk around other threads and look at comments made a few months ago when these stocks were not doing well. The comments are always so optimistic -- it seems that 95% of the people involved in investment threads are bullish. Always bullish, no matter what the technicals and fundamentals are. Even as the stock goes down and down, the comments are always very bullish. Also, any time someone makes a bearish comment they are insulted or even advised to not post any more on the site. Typically internet investors don't even want a hint of bad news. Then these same investors lose their shirts as they hold on to their stock for too long. You talk about hype, Bill, but by participating in these threads that are so heavily biased towards the bullish side, you are contributing to a much stronger hyping force.
And another thing -- do you really think that I could talk down the market in this stock? I gather that this group is quite small time -- exactly why I made the comments. I want the little guys to win. If my comments aren't appreciated, fine by me -- it is you that has everything to lose. The odds are in my favour here.
Organ |
