Positive views on Starpharma, page-38

No, not in one sentence.

I had been a holder on account of SPL's wider portfolio of compounds which I believed included a few winners. That was until the abortive launch of Viraleze in UK, which threatened to either/both expose the company to ridicule or expose it to legal liability for potential failure to deliver on its label claims. Those claims cannot be justified to regulators without proper clinical proof, which had been promised but not provided, so I sold. I would like to see the company relaunch its Viraleze product - which I believe can help to protect users when used appropriately - but to do so they have to properly and fully meet the requirements of regulators for the category of product it offers. They are likely to need outside assistance to get to that point. When it does what it needs to do it will have a marketable product and I may reinvest in it. In the process of retaining such an interest I find the simplistic and angry blame-slinging responses of some posters on here to be unrealistic in a modern regulated world, and likely to lead other holders with more nous to abandon the stock as a dead duck.

How's that sound?