RE: FDA speeds up pace of biological approvalsfunny thing is you don't need a blow by blow laboratory account to evaluate this company:
ding ding ding.
imo, that is or will be the downfall of many ardent "longs" here.
i don't want to trivialize the complexities of the science or that greater understanding of it is not better than less understanding, BUT, in a small developmental biotech with very limited resources (even after 6 separate dilutive financings over the past 25 months), management is as big a key to the success of the science and ultimately the company, as the science.
many "respected" posters here are so focused on the science & revelations thereof, they either lose sight of how the company is being managed or they are so mesmorized by the impressive scienctific properties of reolysin & how it works & its discovery that they are quick to not only overlook management shortcomings but defend them for any AND all questionable matters.
reading most of the posts here over the past 5 or 6 years, i have noticed a decided change in tone over the past 6 months as more and more people are starting to see that management of onc actually matters - and that onc management has demonstrated some serious shortcomings that is hurting the crediblity of not only themselves, but the company AND the science, and therefore shareholder value, imo.
based on recent responses to efforts to effect some change to the Chair of the Board, i'm not sure there has yet been enough change in the "BT is God, the FDA is bad" mantra among some of the more devoted longs, but i have faith in onc management that they will ultimately provide the necessary votes to eventually bring about change.
i'm just not sure whether 100M votes (at a $1 share price) will represent a majority of the shares outstanding when some of the longs here start to clue in.
ps - i want one of those BT got 1.8M options, all i got... T shirts LMAO that was funny