european manufacturer, page-18

Your geezers and boondogs are obvious enough - they buy and then they ramp, they sell and they down-ramp, rinse and repeat.

Personally, I don't really mind, it is the equivalent of cheering at one end of the ground and sprinting up the other end to boo. Once you seem them do it a few times, in the same game, you get the gist of it. Indeed, who doesn't talk their book? Just their book has a much quicker turnover.

I talk up the shares I invest in too - obviously PRR at the moment.

Metaman, dunno why exactly, and don't take offence, but brand new, single topic posters whose posting style is quite articulate but oddly discordant set my teeth on edge.

Now, it isn't my style to attack other posters, but I want to quote (selectively, of course) your six posts since you joined on 26 December and to make some comments, because to me, they seem curious.

Post #1 ..."After that it's the Disaster Zone - time to run for the exits. It's difficult to see how things could get so bad but stranger things have happened. Nasdaq listing isn't all good news - beware the short-sellers that roam around in packs in the states trying to sniff out opportunities. I think DNDN experienced a similar event a couple of years back just when the SP surged from $4 to $24. The short-sellers jumped on the stock and forced it down to around $12 - sweet pickings at that price!"

How does short-selling of DNDN after a meteoric rise make Nasdaq listing of PRR not 'all good news'?

Post #2'...IMHO Nasdaq listing has almost certainly been factored into the share price. What this means is that if there is any announcement suggesting that the Nasdaq listing will not go ahead as anticipated then the share price will plunge, in very short order, back to pre-anticipated-Nasdaq-listing levels - probably around 12c. What will happen when PRR is actually listed is anyone's guess but that will also be factored into the share price at that time.'

Following your unsupported assertion that the listing has 'almost certainly been factored in' follows the scare-mongering suggestion that if there is 'any announcement suggesting that the Nasdaq listing will not go ahead as anticipated then the share price will plunge, in very short order, back to pre-anticipated-Nasdaq-listing levels - probably around 12c.'

It is the fact that you do not quote a single basis on which PRR does not meet the published requirement which allow listing, which makes it scare-mongering. Nasdaq isn't a club with secret rules. If you qualify, as PRR does, and pay the fee, you can list.

When you say 'What will happen when PRR is actually listed is anyone's guess but that will also be factored into the share price at that time.', it invites the inference that the listing is the end-point. It's not, at all, except to the extent that that marks the end of the ability of the domestic market to solely determine the price.

Post #3 ..."So imagine the (unlikely) scenario where Nasdaq listing is withdrawn and ST funding is not there... ouch! In my graph, under another thread, that would take the share price into the Disaster Area. Yes, this is a very unlikely scenario but I do like to consider all possibilites."

Oh no, another worst-case scenario! Lets perhaps share a single reason why PRR would withdraw from its listing?

post #5 ..."The contract would be along the lines of "PRR promises to pay manufacturer $x for n vials of CVAC by such-and-such a date". DNDN could probably set up its own contract with the manufacturer for whatever it wants. If anyone has a step forward it's the manufacturer because they have probably just developed some clever packaging or dispensing technology that is relevant to both PRR and DNDN products (that could be a stock to watch...). Maybe the manufacturer is scaling up and PRR has first dibs on the product or, more likely, the manufacturer is going to use the CVAC trials to test out its new product. Just a thought.

When I provide some facts regarding the manufacturer you respond by saying in post #6:

..."Packaging and dispensing" referred to the way in which the vaccine will be delivered to the patient's body i.e. the therapeutic regime that provides the best outcome for the patient. I would guess that the details of this regime are not currently known (although Phase II trial results would indicate the most likely place to start looking) and Phase III results, if successful, will go a long way towards defining the regime. The Fraunhofer Institute has the expertise to develop the vaccines and set up the trials but, and correct me if I am wrong, PRR holds the IP rights to the vaccine and ultimately the product.'

The prestigious Fraunhofer Institute has been contracted to make a few, and are not 'developing the vaccines', or involved in the theraputic regime which PRR has described at least in general terms, at some length.

"The Fraunhofer Institutehas the expertise to develop the vaccines and set up the trials'

I would have thought that is what PRR has spent 13 years doing and the manufacturer's role is simply to produce them because they have the plant and expertise to do so - exactly to the demanding specs.

You disengenuosly say 'and correct me if I am wrong, PRR holds the IP rights to the vaccine and ultimately the product.' You mean after holding and charting them for a year you don't know that as a fact and are not familiar with the theraputic regims associated with Cvac?

To me, the inferences invited by all your posts serve to subtly undermine confidence in the positives aspects in events currently unfolding, whether or not that is your intention, and I have no basis to make any observation on that point and don't make any.

An no, you don't have to ignore risks such as the ongoing funding once ST is gone come 29 march, but what stronger signal can PRR and ST jointly send to the market that there is better funding in the pipeline than for ST to waive the cancellation fee and to buy more shares?