RE: so mcarter4/bilo had these posts removedwhy would i request stockhouse (owned by the same group that operates onc's "frequently" updated website) to remove a post that supports the contentions in my recent posts?
what i was critical of was your incredible suggestion that the shorts are vulnerable to BT releasing "real positive" news "unexpectedly soon"
imo, your good & valid points lose credibility when you try to spin something that otherwise certainly appears negative into something positive rather than simply letting the facts speak for themselves.
if
Dr. B Thompson is advising Haywood on biotech stocks and Haywood has been one of the houses selling a lot more onc shares than they've been buying, as you ably pointed out, do you really think the shorts (ie Haywood) are "vulnerable"?????
and if
Dr.BT is "advising" a fund that has been shorting his own company's stock, aside from an apparent obvious conflict how does that reflect on
Dr Brad Thompson?
perhaps Matdu, biotexan or other big
Dr. Brad Thompson supporters (and bashers of my criticisms of the good
Dr.) would care to comment/speculate about this like they do so much on other onc matters, like the science?
or is this one of those subjects & posts you prefer to simply defer to others as being outside your area of "expertise"?
and its interesting that a lot of those who ridiculed my earlier accusations of censorship of posts by stockhouse like timenhalf & bigwind, Dr. Spock, rangor, harpersbizarre, doubledeuce etc. have been strangely silent about this most recent example.
perhaps the good
Dr. BT should be more concerned about getting reovirus approved for clincial trials by the FDA than "advising" Haywood or editing posts on stockhouse?
comments? matdu? biotexan? proboscis? geoffB?, rjc? any other "respected" and (bilo basher) posters?
