I love it when Joe comes on the board. I like anyone that is that passionate about their pursuit and willing to vehemently defend it; and I don't give a damn about language used. In fact, it's kind of refreshing to have someone who talks like most of the folks I know in the railroad industry!
I always learn something when Joe jumps in to correct someone or impart his perspective that I either 1) forgot from a previous PR/CC or 2) never understood in the first place (much more likely because the science frequently escapes me). After this latest round of going back and forth with RJS, I am once again reminded of why we were so excited about AE37 even back in the dark ages of GNBT. The potential it has to add to value to GNBT (NGIO), but more importantly to the treatment of BC is phenomenal. Hopefully, these new trials will show the world that potential and ultimately its success.
And if the Altucell (sp?) acquisition is as big as JM thinks it will be, we are golden. It might take a year - maybe even two - but if these two treatments begin to pan out, the pps will take care of itself.
I have maintained for a long time that the OTC is the reason for our pps decline; it has very little to do with the fundamentals or potential of the company. It's why I'm so hopeful to hear from the NAS about the uplisting - I think many of these OTC pps attacks will end and that will quiet many of the shareholders here that think GNBT has to do something to address them.
Finally, I think some here have to remember that while we all want as much info as possible, Joe M is on the hook if something said crosses the full disclosure line; we are not subject to that potential penalty, but he is. Nobody here can say he hasn't provided multiple opportunities to ask questions (what's this - a 3rd CC in 8 weeks coming up?) in a forum where he can answer without fear of crossing the disclosure rules. So maybe a list of questions need to be submitted by those here that have them and can't make the call - he can potentially answer them in his opening statement or at the beginning (end?) of the Q&A, and then we can all read them later in the transcript or on the reply of the call.
I always learn something when Joe jumps in to correct someone or impart his perspective that I either 1) forgot from a previous PR/CC or 2) never understood in the first place (much more likely because the science frequently escapes me). After this latest round of going back and forth with RJS, I am once again reminded of why we were so excited about AE37 even back in the dark ages of GNBT. The potential it has to add to value to GNBT (NGIO), but more importantly to the treatment of BC is phenomenal. Hopefully, these new trials will show the world that potential and ultimately its success.
And if the Altucell (sp?) acquisition is as big as JM thinks it will be, we are golden. It might take a year - maybe even two - but if these two treatments begin to pan out, the pps will take care of itself.
I have maintained for a long time that the OTC is the reason for our pps decline; it has very little to do with the fundamentals or potential of the company. It's why I'm so hopeful to hear from the NAS about the uplisting - I think many of these OTC pps attacks will end and that will quiet many of the shareholders here that think GNBT has to do something to address them.
Finally, I think some here have to remember that while we all want as much info as possible, Joe M is on the hook if something said crosses the full disclosure line; we are not subject to that potential penalty, but he is. Nobody here can say he hasn't provided multiple opportunities to ask questions (what's this - a 3rd CC in 8 weeks coming up?) in a forum where he can answer without fear of crossing the disclosure rules. So maybe a list of questions need to be submitted by those here that have them and can't make the call - he can potentially answer them in his opening statement or at the beginning (end?) of the Q&A, and then we can all read them later in the transcript or on the reply of the call.
6
