No he didn't (go off on a tangent) a newbie asked why the stock was so lowly valued, and bar perhaps the fears over the potential dosing stall to its FDA progression (following unimpressive longer term 1 weekly dosage results - still passed its primary shorter term),
@elquottro gave an accurate and concise account.The old "its a biotech investment, be patient" does not excuse constantly pushed timelines that are sometimes done in little fireside chats despite their massive pricing implications. PR has appalling disclosure habits and runs PAR like its a private company he can just push guidance on, or casually relay to others informally.
PAR is under-valued, hence I've loaded up recently, but half the reason the stock is down here from its "Chairman/CEO pumping investor partnership hopes" highs of $4+, is the shoddy governance, failed promises/timelines/guidance and general casualness of PR in running a publicly listed company. The accusation of 5 year dangle of promised partnerships is no exaggeration, as others have kindly posted on here via past formal guidance.
PR is tawdry and brash at best, but the science that compelling, he will probably (with Skerret) still get it over the line....eventually.
(20min delay)