Bears,...I agree. And if my retorts to some are part of the issue at time, my apologies. There seems to be a trend be a select few to throw out as many doubt causing issues as possible to see what sticks.
For example:
Not enough transparency vs. too many empty PR's.
CEO has no credibility vs. CEO trying to demonstrate credibility with relationship w/ BIO(now being called a lobbying group?)
Rubenfield is a figure head with no involvement vs. trying to suggest a negative that Rubinfield is guiding the path(GC)

This is what, IMO, begins most of the bickering.

I've been invested here a looong time and have no issue with a complete and researched negative. But just tossing out unconnected or unresearched negatives leads to arguments to put it to rest.....

Or worse, some negative are so far out and so unfounded that that the board spends the day trying to prove them wrong rather than having any constructive dialogue.

I'm firm in my investment here, but I also remember that in the early months/years being swayed by MB thoughts. My guess is that newer investors still are and that is still the play being made. I get it, "here to make money", but there are many other MB's out there for that.