We own this company so..., page-7

Once again, the charges of corruption and manipulation must be proven before advertising as such. At least you do not identify whom you feel is the "corruptor". Others throw out the name of a governmental drug regulating agency while omitting the names of others who may be more corrupt. How would they know differently? There have been enough congressional hearings to identify any wrong-doing. It's been the company CEO's who have been indicted, not the scientific investigators.

Those unproven public accusations put an even blacker mark on this already less than well-regarded entity. Is that what you want? Luckily message board opinions don't count in the real world. There is fault galore right here. You are very correct about the slim chance of effecting change by votes of the majority holders. But how long can this go on without identifying the real corruption: purposely intended or simply ineptness?