My only argument against this line of questioning

My only argument against this line of questioning is that back 2016/2017 Nader, Klump, Kelly et al., were doing just such a promotional calculation based on HIV, and maybe one or two other indications. They publicly calculated those worldwide markets, even though we weren’t and still are not at market, and promoted that this stock should be around $50 per share. Perhaps publicly is overstated, but the individual whose information started me down this path, heard it first in a fund-raising meeting in Klumps firm with Nader present. $50 per share mind you, based on every indication LL should help with in 2016/2017.

$50 per share is exactly why I never thought selling at $10. I was bamboozled by pie-in-the-sky calculations of what is the potential value of every indication LL should be approved for in every market, everywhere, all at once, all the time, and very soon.

I suggest your thought experiment can be hazardous to your investment strategy.

GLTA