Oh Dolce, you’re just too much! “Hair splitting and mischievous...

Oh Dolce, you’re just too much! “Hair splitting and mischievous misrepresentations”! I love it! Though they don’t seem to be egregious enough for you to actually address them. That’s OK – none of us have as much time on our hands as we’d like. In any case, you’ve probably got many bigger issues to think about today. So I’ll be brief.

Just in case anyone else is following this, I thought it would be worthwhile drawing the principal threads together, by way of a summary, as it were.

Your accusations, of me and others, being traders and/or shorters, and your ability to read the minds of LT holders:

You believe that you can divine posters’ motives and intent from the content of their posts, and assert as "fact" that the threads are dominated by traders and shortens. I do not. You have failed to provide any evidence to support your assertion.
One must therefore assume that there is no underlying substance to your position.
Oh, and incidentally, I have never claimed “zero interest in this game”, as you suggested in your last post. On the contrary, as I’ve mentioned many times, I have considerable interest in biotechnology generally, and stem cells specifically. So MSB, you might say, is right in my wheel house.

Traders:

You don’t like them! My goodness, you don’t like them.
Broadly speaking, I think we arrived at a point where, anyone who buys and sells their shares more frequently than you’d like them to, is a trader, and therefore a deserving recipient of your righteous wrath.
I think that everyone who owns shares in MSB traded them for something, and will probably trade them again in the future. Including you. Oh, and trading isn’t illegal, immoral or unethical.

The timing of US launch for MSB’s CHF product, and how it is impacted by the regulatory environment:

I think that the earliest they can get to market is 2018, and I’ve provided an analysis of why I think this is the case, based upon published MSB timelines and (unverifiable) claims of my experience in the field.
You claim that my analysis is based upon outdated and inapplicable models, and your best case scenario is early 2017, though you have not shared the details of your analysis, or what more contemporary and applicable models you have used.
One must therefore assume that there is no underlying substance to your position.

FDA guidance on stem cell trials, “treatment chain” and burden of proof:

I think that the guidance comes before the studies, and know that there are indeed many guidance documents already available on stem cells.
You think that (indeed, assert it as another Dolce “fact”) that “a policy is being developed on stem cells by the FDA”, and that it’s “work in progress”. I assume that you mean a policy that deals with where in the “treatment chain” stem cells should be used, and how that results in a lower burden of proof for manufacturers. We never really finalised what you mean by “treatment chain”, and you weren’t able to provide any supporting information to back up this assertion.
One must therefore assume that there is no underlying substance to your position.

Stem cell manufacturing:

I know what I’m talking about.
You don’t.

Finally, on my “transparent attempts to discredit you”, well, I sincerely hope that they’re not transparent! I hope that they’re completely, er… parent. Because someone who peddles substance-free nonsense as fact, supposedly in support of, variously, weak holders and mums ‘n’ dads needs discrediting.

See also Madamswer's fact-rich and data-heavy post on dilution today.

There. I think that about sums it up.