I will try to keep this post to words of few sylla
Post# of 72447
(Total Views: 583)
Posted On: 05/21/2020 9:13:52 PM
I will try to keep this post to words of few syllables for the benefit of the basher who has trouble with reading comprehension and logical thinking.
I address this only because I have a life and did not see his absurd post until it had been up for an hour, which means that some readers may have seen it.
The CEO of SRNE claimed to have a "cure 100% of the time" for COVID, based on preliminary laboratory studies. This is obviously untrue. It has not even reached the stage of animal tests, so it is untrue to claim it has "cured" any living creature, animal or human.
Statements about the progress of a drug, when those statements are TRUE, are perfectly acceptable. If the CEO of SRNE had said "We had 100% success with all of our laboratory samples, which showed that our drug might be effective against COVID in mammals," that would be acceptable. To say that you "have a cure" when it has not been tried in any living creature -- that's not acceptable. There's a big difference between guaranteeing a cure 100% of the time and saying that something looks promising.
Moreover, after the huge run-up in SRNE stock, which approximately tripled in one day, the company immediately announced a secondary stock offering. It seems clear that the CEO's comments resulted in a huge increase in share price, and then the secondary was ready to go. This seems to be stock manipulation to enable a better price for a secondary offering.
People who bought that stock on the run up, thinking that the company actually HAD a cure, and then saw their investment plummet in value because of that immediate secondary offering, would have a point if they wanted to sue the company.
Shareholders in a company whose CEO simply informs them of progress and the way that scientists might view the company's intellectual property -- have no reason to be anything but grateful that they are being kept informed
I address this only because I have a life and did not see his absurd post until it had been up for an hour, which means that some readers may have seen it.
The CEO of SRNE claimed to have a "cure 100% of the time" for COVID, based on preliminary laboratory studies. This is obviously untrue. It has not even reached the stage of animal tests, so it is untrue to claim it has "cured" any living creature, animal or human.
Statements about the progress of a drug, when those statements are TRUE, are perfectly acceptable. If the CEO of SRNE had said "We had 100% success with all of our laboratory samples, which showed that our drug might be effective against COVID in mammals," that would be acceptable. To say that you "have a cure" when it has not been tried in any living creature -- that's not acceptable. There's a big difference between guaranteeing a cure 100% of the time and saying that something looks promising.
Moreover, after the huge run-up in SRNE stock, which approximately tripled in one day, the company immediately announced a secondary stock offering. It seems clear that the CEO's comments resulted in a huge increase in share price, and then the secondary was ready to go. This seems to be stock manipulation to enable a better price for a secondary offering.
People who bought that stock on the run up, thinking that the company actually HAD a cure, and then saw their investment plummet in value because of that immediate secondary offering, would have a point if they wanted to sue the company.
Shareholders in a company whose CEO simply informs them of progress and the way that scientists might view the company's intellectual property -- have no reason to be anything but grateful that they are being kept informed
(13)
(1)