Medical symptoms showing a poster is a dirty pumper/shill
…phase 3b confirmatory trial - 61 done *exceeding expectations on the way to interim of 90 total. ***Trial could end there – AP
given results are **(greatly?) *exceeding expectations, and the fact that they have already put in $ 10M USD, the only ****Analyst assumes *****100% likelihood of FDA approval, – MM
***Assuming the Trail is not stopped at 90 (Spectral Mgt says it won't be...but I wonder ******how the FDA feels about it?) – MM
* The pumper-shill spreads a vague statement issued by the company, thus relying on the word of said company, which has proven to be untrustworthy in a perfectly identical context in the past. The vagueness of the statement only adds to the suspicion that pumperitis is involved.
** “Greatly” in this context is a sure identifier of late-stage pumperitis.
*** Here, the behaviour of alluding that a reality contrary to what was asserted by the company might actually be true, after previously relying on the company’s word, indicates the pumper/shill is BSing at the highest level possible. Note that every “information” in one direction or the other is used to convey the idea that the stock is more valuable than what one might deduce simply by following the company’s activities and results.
**** Here, a proven-to-be-unreliable-analyst-with-connections-to-the-anlysee’s opinion is magically transformed into a *****statement of certainty entirely incompatible with reality. Any large medical-investment entity having knowledge that a product is certain to be approved would just immediately buy out the sponsor of the product, unless of course the market for the product is not very promising. This ****statement itself is an indicator of a grave case of bad faith and should discredit any of the poster’s future claims.
******This one might just be an attempt at humour trying to hide the imminent realization that one’s foot has been stuck in one’s mouth for far too long. The author of such an open-ended question imagines that a regulatory authority like the FDA, which has had no trouble dismissing in the past the company’s claim that its product is effective (Euphrates trial) and has agreed to assess the results of a trial (Tigris) designed to pick only the most favorable patients, would be inclined to stop this most recent trial and approve the product (for numerous cases falling outside the parameters of the trial, according to other pumper claims), based on preliminary results. The manifestation of this symptom will be twice as indicative of the lack of trust the pumper-shill might warrant when the trial is in fact not stopped at the interim point, which, if we are to follow the reasoning of the pumper-shill, would indicate that those results were, really, not exceeding expectations.