Ann: ResApp announces positive results of COVID-19 screening test, page-421

You have posted that graph at least four times now, and it has been pointed out to you every time that it includes many years of data prior to Resapp. You are being dishonest in continuing to post it and portraying it as Resapp performance.

"Maybe I own RAP, maybe I do not, it’s none of your business is it" – Actually, it is our business. By posting on HotCopper you are making it our business. HotCopper requires you to declare your position and sentiment as this is an important factor for us when we weigh up the important of your comments. Your desire to hide your position casts serious doubts on your credibility, just as your persistent and wilful lies about the share price history of the stock.

"and if you do you will be trampled by the drunk herd" – It is your inaccuracies that are getting trampled. So far your incorrect claims include:

1. Asymptomatic people cannot be diagnosed. This is directly contradicted by the announcement you are discussing.
2. Those without a cough cannot be diagnosed. The company has explained many, many times that a voluntary cough is just as useful as an involuntary one.
3. That Resapp has been operating since 2005 (indicated in your graph above). Resapp was acquired from University of Queensland at the end of 2014. Any share price action prior to that time has nothing to do with Resapp.
4. That the "pharmaceutical industry" will attempt to "discredit the science" at every step. Well "the science" has been out there for at least five years now without any sign of a campaign by anything you might call a "pharmaceutical industry".
5. That somebody could "fake a cough to get the positive/ negative result you want". This spectacularly stupid comment implies that a person has voluntary control over the tissues and structures of their respiratory tract.
6. "and peer views, have there been any". Shows your complete lack of any kind of research. The company website lists many peer reviewed papers published on Resapp research.
7. "it has some strong competition". What competition? Go on... give is a list.
8. "I think they [China] would prefer to purchase the tech from other providers such as MIT or Cambridge". Except that MIT and Cambridge don't have the tech!

So what are you left with? Just incredibly obvious motherhood statements:

1. "The science is questionable". Of course. All science is questionable. That's how science works. A researcher publishes something. Every other scientist in the world questions it, probes it, tests it, looks for gaps, inconsistencies, inaccuracies and then tries to come up with a better understanding. If you want unquestionable laws go to church.
2. "The product may not get regulatory approval". Of course. Nothing is guaranteed. The next significant re-rate in share price will be determined by the answer to this issue. You're hardly contributing anything with such an obvious comment.

If you don't want to get "trampled" try posting some legitimate analysis based on facts.