TOB, I greatly value the many contributions you ha

TOB, I greatly value the many contributions you have made to research and writing on this stock. But I disagree as to whether posts should have been deleted, particularly in light of what bearish posters are permitted to say, but similar things are deleted for bullish posters rebutting them.

I do not believe that this deleted post is "off-topic." Snarky, yes. But not off-topic, when someone said that the company had the "burden of proof" on it to refute libelous allegations:

Quote:

---

There's no burden of proof on the company. The company has already PROVED that the allegations were false. They have PROVED that they have promising drugs in the antibiotic, cancer, and psoriasis areas, based on FDA approval of human trials, and the preliminary results from 2 of those trials. They have QIDP designation for the antibiotic, and permission for a human trial for oral mucositis. They also have a clinical trial at one of the pre-eminent research institutions in the country.

On whom is the burden of proof? In this country it is on the accuser.

Please show me the proof that the accuser has that a company with at least 4 clinical trials is a "shell" company, and that the FDA-approved trials have "no hope" of success? You can't show me the proof, because there is none. There are only libelous accusations.

It's disgraceful that Seeking Alpha has refused to remove that article despite the overwhelming evidence that it is a fabric of lies from start to finish.

And yes, you ARE alone (except for those with malign intentions toward the company) in thinking that the rebuttals from management are anything less than stellar.

---

How can that possibly be deemed "off topic" when the topic is whether the company rebutted the false claims?

I think that many will continue to post at iHUB, and others are unhappy enough at being treated with what they perceive as unfair treatment so that they don't want to post there.