RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Dumping 20M shares and keeping 10M warrants @$3.18They can do it a lot better than we can. I left out a lot of stuff because I am unsure of the science since I don't have a strong background there. It can be done and, to a certain extent, they have started doing it in recent coporate presentations. But they also now need to add the component of not just addressing the science skeptics but also addressing the valaution gap straightforwardly in their presentations as well. It is hard for me to understand why this is not something they do reflexively since there cannot be much arguament that the zero value TH gets on its NASH program is just a bit extreme, no? Management should be hopping mad about that and should wake up every morning steaming about it and determined to do something about it as well.
Wino115 wrote: I think your responses are perfectly aimed at the facts and totally supported by their data and the factual developments. I had done something similar a while back and was just too tired to keep doing it over and over, but I also don't get why they don't put together a factual argument that acknowledges the past developments and puts ALL the pieces together to form a really convincing case as to why they have every bit as good a chance as anyone else to add this indication to their existing drug. In fact, as you've done, you can actually make an even better case than some of the others out there given the history and the HIV trial being harder. I mean the numbers are all there. I just don't get why they haven't been able to put it all together like that in a convincing way. If all of us here can do it, there is absolutely no reason they can't be doing this.