Look, it's an obvious attempt and humor and a suggestion at a...

Look, it's an obvious attempt and humor and a suggestion at a potential motive underlying the cadence and frequency of your contributions.

I get that debate is enjoyable and that you'll find plenty of people on here willing to engage, if not on the science, than some other substantive aspect of the company or its prospects. In thinking about my own investment process and optimising use of my own time, I would seek to confirm/disconfirm a number of aspects upfront and then make a decision about whether to invest, hold off and watch, or to rule out investment altogether. I'm also continually seeking to disconfirm my beliefs regarding the narrow scope that I am invested in - not the super set of potential ideas I'm not invested in. I'm sure this isn't uncommon.

Now fair enough, you might say that you're in the middle there, but I'm genuinely curious - given the amount of time you've invested here already, surely you have an idea of what it would take to move your needle to a buy? Are we talking full FDA approval and commercialisation? If so, how does this accord with your, as you put it, 'balls deep' strategy in other biotech plays which have yet to pass regulatory hurdles and generate revenues, and what makes a potential investment in MSB substantively different?

Further, if you've ruled out investment already based on something you consider to be substantive - e.g. the science not stacking up, why engage in debate on small target stuff that wont shift the needle for you way or the other?