RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:how do the few longs feel about jd leaving you? Cool yer jets, beenthere.
I understand that you don't understand.
It seems that, despite your attacks on me for years (you actually called me a liar, several times), that you nevertheless took comfort from me being positive.
But now that time is running on to a point where Bioasis MUST clarify some things, and I'm asking some very tough questions, you're freaking out because it seems that nobody is positive about Bioasis. Well, I'm still positive, but shareholders are not. I talk to a lot of people. They are not happy.
You don't deal with subtleties very well, beenthere. There are hard questions about Bioasis that need to be answered. Questions aren't the problem. It's the lack of answers that's the problem. I said the other day that questions are not opinions, unless the questions are rhetorical. Separate the questions from opinions, beenthere.
I can't be bothered dealing with you much more today, but you need to calm down. I don't control Bioasis. I don't speak for them and I never have. My public presence was always considered to be as a commentator and definitely not as a company representative. My contracts with Bioasis are very clear about that and I always respected it.
I have ALWAYS been critical of Bioasis, especially since back in 2014. In 2014, before I entered a contract with Bioasis in August of that year, but after the peptide was announced in April ( meaning I was not under an NDA) I asked RH about Bioasis entering clinical programs with the peptide. The response I got was a rhetorical question, "Why would Bioasis take the risk of entering preclinical and clinical programs when we can get partners and licensees to take those risks?"
At that moment I started wondering whether Bioasis was started strictly as a stock play, and whether the capabilities of xB3 turned out to be a pleasant surprise, one that RH finally thought he ought to pursue. The capabilities of the peptide made it look like there might be highly valuable commercial opportunities available to Bioasis, but that the company was going to let others have them and control the story. It was a tough time for me.
But it always boiled down to a simple thing. If xB3 worked as hoped, then it was very valuable. Now the question is whether xB3 works as hoped and the company is not really expressing that hope right now. That corporate presentation is garbage, 17 pages of nothing but EGF.
So, yeah, there are questions. Maybe DrDR thinks that the shareholders have so much confidence in xB3 that she doesn't have talk about it. But then, maybe xB3 is dead and we don't know about it yet.
Bioasis needs to provide some clarity and if it doesn't then shareholders had best get their heads straight about it all. There may be no xB3. That would come as a huge disappointment to all of us. Maybe EGF is valuable, but it is nowhere near as valuable as a successful xB3 would be.
So calm down, beenthere, you're not the only one waiting for resolution on this.
I should go back and read this for errors. I can't be bothered.
Fred Upchurch