The preponderance of evidence is that a well-funde

The preponderance of evidence is that a well-funded cabal of shorts (probably hedge funds) has attacked this stock. Several smaller groups of individual traders also attacked the stock at the same time. This stock has not declined because of genuine, well-founded concerns about whether the company is proceeding with clinical trials for drugs that seem to be promising -- 3 drugs with clinical trials for 4 applications is evidence enough. A market cap of 130 million for such a company is obviously absurdly low.

One need only look at a chart of the stock, with a timeline of events such as the Mako article and the Rosen phony lawsuit, to see a pattern. The sudden removal of at least 15 bullish posters on the other site by claiming that their posts were all "off topic" should be a red flag to anyone who still wonders whether there has been a scheme aimed at keeping share price low.

If people want to disagree with the actions of management or posts that other people make, that is fine, as long as things do not degenerate into the kind of nastiness we see at Yahoo and, for instance, the kinds of things we've seen on the NNVC board at the other site.

In the future, posts that call anyone (including management) incredibly offensive names will be deleted. People should be aware that when they use that kind of over-the-top inflammatory language, it discredits them and their point of view, and makes their personal animosity and bias evident.