Just about everything you wrote is a straw man or a misrepresentation of my position. There is no point rebutting what I didn't say. What I have said I'll stand by and acknowledge if it have to correct it if its pointed out that its wrong.
You suggested MSB might have added INF gamma to the testing matrix - I reject that suggestion as overwhelmingly improbable in light of the other things that I do know and know from information that is public domain. But I can't prove you didn't hear it. All I can do is ask for a source or if others heard what your claim to have heard. There is simply nothing to suggest that they have done that except your recollection and you holding it open as a possibility. But because you hold open possibilities that can't be ruled out but are pleasingly positive - you'll get the like ticks from holders.
I also reject the suggestion that you make that INF gamma would not be mentioned as an additional assay if MSB had been added it. INF gamma priming is used already by enough in the industry based on papers I've read by Klinker and Bauer that there isn't anything special left for MSB to conceal.
I do know from reading the ODAC notes that SI has commented on the potency assays MSB have used historically - and whilst he didn't say that hadn't used INF-alpha - I know that he hadn't to that stage from what he did say.
Maybe you and I should just move onto having side bets on binary propositions. So there is some penalty for you making positive sounding claims that have no basis or support behind them. Or for offering rationalisations that the company hasn't even had to make.
MSB Price at posting:
90.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)