RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Feuerstein-Ratain Rule Jd, I note your complete U-turn of "I think it's time to let you tout that
ridiculous FR Rule all by yourself."
to
"The FR rule actually offers an
excellent piece of investment advice." (my underlining, both quotes from this thread)
So I'm glad to see you have a better understanding of the FR rule now, and confirm that it does not apply to Bioasis, even if I don't get any apology and you don't show any acceptance of error in your more general posting of misleading commentary as to how it relates to Bioasis..
In fact, rather than apology, I get your continued personal attacks "I'll stick with my contention that raising the Feuersteinand-Ratain rule on this forum was irresponsible. It was
needless provocation that came from somebody
whose ego needed a little more bouyancy." (my underlining)
Just to remind you (again), in my original comment, posted in reply to a post by fourmm that started "To add to digitel's comment, also remember that in biotech big gains usually come way before commercialization"
I said
(link):
""big gains ... before commercialization", there is a "rule" that makes that valuation a pre-requisite apparently, although it applies specifically to oncology, and was true up until 2013 at least! ..."
and the rule specifically says and I quoted this "... when predicting micro-cap
phase 3 oncology trial success ... " (underlining added)
And I clarified that P3 condition in my reply to your first comment on my post with "Hi jd, I think the point is that the market "knows" in advance whether the drug will pass or fail P3 and has already started to buy-up the successful companies." I obviously should have emboldened the "P3" mention for your benefit.
So as Bioasis is not doing a P3 trial, I fail to see how anyone, especially
someone with such an in-depth knowledge of Bioasis, could think I thought the FR rule applied to Bioasis. It was a point about the valuation of a group of companies that Bioasis might one day be part of. Hence it was not "irresponsible" and I really didn't do it because I have an "ego needed a little more bouyancy". But I see it gave you an opportunity to indulge in yet more personal attacks. Keep this up and I will categorise it as harassment, or have we already got there?
And quite why you have made so much of this "rule", including changing your opinion about it as just demonstrated and why you chose to use
selective quoting to remove the P3 reference so as to make it look like I did not include that specific point, as demonstrated
here, is beyond me, except perhaps that Bioasis pay you "by the word".
You're in a hole jd, the standard advice is to stop digging. But as always I look forward to the scientific insights you provide.
MD