RE:RE:RE:At 48 years old I’ve seem some scams in my day...You are correct Bio, (or is that biohazard, perhaps it's bio-haphazard) but it was Telesta that set the 40% standard in consultation with the FDA. Telesta was convinced and convinced their partners that they coud meet that. As a consequence they ended up with sht on their faces. If they had said 20 % from the beginning and met an objective standard in number of cohorts then FDA would have been more amenable to approval or conditional approval in useage with other bladder cancer treatmets. So here we have PLI claiming a 100% success rate, on what, 10 subjects?
So to presume or equate science, or weak science as good business practise shows how ignorant and stupid you are regarding investing. You want to shift the discussion to your own misconceptions as informed. You are not in the least bit informed. You are a two-bit nobody pretending you understand the science. . You are nothing but a wannabe investor who lays down before management and says fukme, and when they fail you lay down again and say fukme again. We need a little shareholder activism here, not mindless, zombie, lobotomised, half-wit dogmatic followers like you. Let's get some real management, not a bunch of failures.