As a practicing physician, it's amazing that the "negative...

As a practicing physician, it's amazing that the "negative outlook" posters on this stock would actually mention the product not being good or useful. I can see bashing it as overvalued, mismanaged as a company, too early to see what true valuation is, etc. But mentioning skin area, usefulness in burns vs skin lesions, etc. It is WAAAYYY better from any physicians perspective that anything available. AND it's approved. When I say WAAAYY better, that means cost effectiveness, decreased scarring, decreased donor site morbidity,it will prove less infection rate as well. What more could it be better at clinically? Focus your attacks on management and the company not following the best path. It severely discredits your arguments when usefulness/non-novelty is mentioned.