(Total Views: 838)
Posted On: 09/26/2020 9:38:58 AM
Post# of 149105
Myself and others have provided more than enough evidence. NP was an author on THAT journal submission and because he was an author, he was able to contact the journal and stop the publication process. No, it wasn’t the FDA, big pharma, or a secret cabal of world scientists who don’t want the secret of RANTES to be be known and who have no right to block the paper. Again, NP had the opportunity to deny CYDY’s involvement in blocking the paper and instead he deflected the question.
For those who have worked in the field of information and intelligence collection (news, police, intelligence community, military, etc.) the identify of the source of the information is often protected for obvious reasons. On a biotech message board, where stockholders emotions are running high, revealing the sources of the information in regards to NP blocking Dr. BP’s paper would results in hate filled emails, texts and phone calls to those individuals. And I don’t even believe if we revealed the identify of the sources and their close connections to Dr. BP that investors would accept the information.
What’s interesting about this “discussion” on the blocking of Dr. BP’s paper is that baseless and often near-conspiracy type claims seem more accepted than facts presented by legitimate and long term investors. This aligns with the pattern of many biotech message boards and isn’t surprising. I’m impressed by how far investors will go to deny an event that shines negative light on an aspect of the company their invested in. I admit that I didn’t initially believe Dr. BP’s absence earlier this summer meant he and CYDYs relationship no longer existed. I was a denier and countered others arguments that his abrupt absence was similar to that of Dr. Pestells. Well, turned out I was wrong and the logical investors, who’d done some research, were correct.
Think about it this way: at the same time NP was blocking Dr. BP’s paper and souring a promising relationship, he and the BOD were also developing and approving an outrageous compensation plan that NP would attempt to slide under the noses of investors and sell as a “recruiting tool.”
For those who have worked in the field of information and intelligence collection (news, police, intelligence community, military, etc.) the identify of the source of the information is often protected for obvious reasons. On a biotech message board, where stockholders emotions are running high, revealing the sources of the information in regards to NP blocking Dr. BP’s paper would results in hate filled emails, texts and phone calls to those individuals. And I don’t even believe if we revealed the identify of the sources and their close connections to Dr. BP that investors would accept the information.
What’s interesting about this “discussion” on the blocking of Dr. BP’s paper is that baseless and often near-conspiracy type claims seem more accepted than facts presented by legitimate and long term investors. This aligns with the pattern of many biotech message boards and isn’t surprising. I’m impressed by how far investors will go to deny an event that shines negative light on an aspect of the company their invested in. I admit that I didn’t initially believe Dr. BP’s absence earlier this summer meant he and CYDYs relationship no longer existed. I was a denier and countered others arguments that his abrupt absence was similar to that of Dr. Pestells. Well, turned out I was wrong and the logical investors, who’d done some research, were correct.
Think about it this way: at the same time NP was blocking Dr. BP’s paper and souring a promising relationship, he and the BOD were also developing and approving an outrageous compensation plan that NP would attempt to slide under the noses of investors and sell as a “recruiting tool.”
(12)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
