RE:RE:RE:CIBC UpdateScott,
I have a problem with the legitimate aspect about the safety issue.
Not because the analyst raised it, but because the way he raised it without any scientific background.
The analyst is not an expert in biology, nor a scientific. You just can't do that kind of analogy to raise a point, like he did.
It's like my voodoo analysis and comments of yesterday. I tried to point out that you can say anything with any kind of comparaisons, but the question is far more complex then just pin out on a receptor or similarity in molecular formula.
I think the analyst should stuck with what he knows, and leave the science to people who can understand it.
If he would had raise a concern about safety on a long term period without that lousy comparaison like he did (And like I did yesterday for fun), I would had said fine, we have no data yet for a full 52 or 104 weeks.
But making an analogy with another molecule that is totally different and for a different indication, and without talking about the safety profile sor far with the available datas, well I think it's either an amateur job, or intellectual dishonesty.