Hi Mac, agree wholeheartedly with your post but the word "negative" is redundant, or could just as easily be replaced by positive. Manipulation goes both ways.
Printable View
It’s not a matter of being bullish or bearish blackcap, it’s a matter of the quality of the debate. We are all bullish, or neutral, or bearish on different stocks, that’s what makes a market, and that point is fine.
However, when we see respected members driven away, not because they don’t respect a bearish view, but because the volume of negative opinion without substantive supporting information, research, links or data just makes participating unrewarding.
It’s very easy and lazy in life to be cynical, negative and to make cheap quick opinionated comments, it takes a lot of effort and time to be balanced and to provide a researched position for debate.
If you have spent a decade researching a stock why would you hang about when a small but prolific minority of very opinionated knockers habitually slander a company and its management without any debateable proof, evidence, links, or data in support.
They are not being bearish, its negativity provided by a small rather vein minority with an unrealistic expectation that they may scare enough newbies and retail investors into selling to creating a short term dip.
Personally, I think it’s a loss that people are leaving, especially someone like Hancock’s who willingly and openly provided so much quality information for all that time, often valuable information from behind the scenes too.
Frankly, right now, I don’t blame him for going.
Hi Mac, I respect your post and what you say and agree a lot of the posts are inconsequential. We just need to sift out what we do need and what we do not need. That is the nature of an open forum. However I have been participating on this forum almost from day 1 and from what I can gather the quality of posts has not really deteriorated at all. But back to what I was trying to infer.... your comment above is correct. But that above post is also valid if it reads "However, when we see respected members driven away, not because they don’t respect a bullish view, but because the volume of positive opinion without substantive supporting information, research, links or data just makes participating unrewarding."
Or do you disagree? I was just trying to say that manipulation of a stock (which under current law is still illegal I thought) goes both down and up.
I see that this PEB thread has moved ahead of Pike River in the number of posts and views
Still a little way to go to head off NOG and become the most discussed thread
Had a bit of a dig looking for hints as to why Oryzon has not got cracking with Cxbladder in Spain.
No answers found, but according to the website of EuropaBio, the Spanish Association of Biotechnology, Cxbladder is, at least, seemingly all good to go in Spain and Portugal...
http://www.asebio.com/es/documents/S...ELINE_2014.pdf
(listed p2 under diagnostics)
Thanks Psychic for the link.
Oryzon are working through European regulatory approvals at present too, so substantive sales cannot probably occur until that phase is due to be completed.
“In preparation for the launch of Cxbladder in Spain through our commercial partner Oryzon, applications for CE Mark registration and compliance are currently underway.”
http://www.pacificedge.co.nz/about-u...ity-assurance/
My speculation is that the EU may require clinical trials and/or user programmes to be conducted within their territorial boundaries.
Thanks Mac.
This has no doubt been thrashed around before, but the O'Sullivan et al paper - most of the contributors were associated with PEB. Do you think that perhaps this has held adoption by Urologists in the US back?
Shouldn't expect so, the clinical trials and user programmes are independent, Pacific Edge must do what they do and perform the lab tests of course, but the review of performance and judgement is made by clinicians.
Papers are commonly prepared by professionals associated with the innovation, as is the case with my profession too, but whether prepared by associates or otherwise the results are what they are, independent.
Thanks Mac. It is long process getting CMS approval clearly.
Interested to note that there are in fact Companies that specialise in this process:
http://www.advi.com/
ADVI is a boutique health care advisory services firm.
Our business is making companies more valuable.
Our approach:
Develop knowledge of the US and International healthcare markets to identify risks and opportunities
Translate the business implications of health policy and regulation
Create or accelerate market access for new products and services