I agree. What has been reported regarding LymPro a
Post# of 30067
Posted On: 07/17/2014 6:01:59 PM
I agree. What has been reported regarding LymPro accuracy so far is simply laying the groundwork for the upcoming data on 7/31.
I'm a smart guy also, but I think people are letting the quack's posts cause confusion and cause them to try to figure out the numbers themselves. They might not respond to the quack, but it's clear some are reading everything he posts regarding the AAIC data, and it's causing concern.
I am comfortable with Gerald's and other management/advisors statements regarding the data. I don't feel I need to understand it the way an AD researcher would understand it. While I'm confident in my ability to understand the data if I was so inclined to educate myself on the specifics, in this area I do rely somewhat on my trust in management and the advisors. I'm simply not motivated enough to want to delve into the finer details of research and how the data is reported. I'm not getting myself worked up into a frenzy because I might not fully understand things.
The data on 7/31 is what matters. Everything else is just noise. The company has been very transparent in their communications with shareholders. They have reported the good stuff and the setbacks. I have no reason to believe this will change anytime soon. At some point you either have faith in the long-term outlook for the investment and the management, or you don't. One doesn't need to have a full understanding of every detail to be a good investor. Much of this is going to be over our heads. That's why we rely on the seasoned and experienced expert advisors guiding the company. Why are some letting the rants of an unlicensed nut case raise doubts about the data, especially one who posts almost continuously for 24 hours in an insane attempt to spread FUD about the data presented?
I'm a smart guy also, but I think people are letting the quack's posts cause confusion and cause them to try to figure out the numbers themselves. They might not respond to the quack, but it's clear some are reading everything he posts regarding the AAIC data, and it's causing concern.
I am comfortable with Gerald's and other management/advisors statements regarding the data. I don't feel I need to understand it the way an AD researcher would understand it. While I'm confident in my ability to understand the data if I was so inclined to educate myself on the specifics, in this area I do rely somewhat on my trust in management and the advisors. I'm simply not motivated enough to want to delve into the finer details of research and how the data is reported. I'm not getting myself worked up into a frenzy because I might not fully understand things.
The data on 7/31 is what matters. Everything else is just noise. The company has been very transparent in their communications with shareholders. They have reported the good stuff and the setbacks. I have no reason to believe this will change anytime soon. At some point you either have faith in the long-term outlook for the investment and the management, or you don't. One doesn't need to have a full understanding of every detail to be a good investor. Much of this is going to be over our heads. That's why we rely on the seasoned and experienced expert advisors guiding the company. Why are some letting the rants of an unlicensed nut case raise doubts about the data, especially one who posts almost continuously for 24 hours in an insane attempt to spread FUD about the data presented?
(0)
(0)