Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DewDiligence_on_SI who wrote (33404)	1/17/2010 11:01:54 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 52153

That not correct, Clark. I chose to ignore Ashley’s “too little data” allegation because I think the copious amount of data Monsanto has submitted to US and foreign regulators on the products in question renders such a charge patently silly. Then I suggest that posting the links would be useful (instead of being miffed at her). Note: I don't actually care enough to spend more than 20 minutes reading them (since I was just trying to be helpful in explaining what I percieved to be a talking past each other). But 20 minutes seems enough to warrant a request - so I hearby do so.

To: DewDiligence_on_SI who wrote (33404)	1/17/2010 11:23:28 PM
From: A.J. Mullen	Respond to of 52153

Wow Dew! That's strange. This is what I said to you: "If someone comes out and says. It's not true! There were not ten rats in each group, there were twenty (or thirty) rats used in collecting the blood and urine data then I'll worry about funding distorting the paper. " Now you say that's what you think or "know." Strange, you didn't say so at the time. That makes debates difficult. Monsanto hasn't made this new claim of yours, so I'm skeptical. I'm with Clark. Please post your links, and please make them to the specific papers. Ashley