Report is worth something, whatever CYP paid for it lol.Its my...

Report is worth something, whatever CYP paid for it lol.

Its my understanding (based on not seeing you post until recently) that you are a relatively new holder to cyp. So I get that any report that summarises - is useful.

But that above comment of yours - even though you end with lol like you get that what you said sort of doesn't make sense - REALLY doesn't make sense and its an especially dangerous idea (the idea that whatever a CEO or a board does or pays someone else to do implies what they do or pay for has value - it doesn't sometimes and they overpay sometimes) - that idea (its opposite really - doubt and question and ask where the values is) is really important in a company like CYP.

I've not been engaging with bedger's commentary (he goes on about me - not the stock - and he says I've had 8000 posts - he has - I haven't - and he suggests - because I quoted a whole sentence from the report and highlighted another section (the bit about CYP-001 not being covered by cash - CYP001 is GvHD - its the main trial - its the trial with only about 20% recruited as the year approaches the end so with about 80% to go) - bedger false interprets what I wrote in quotes as indicating I didn't understand that CYP is cash negative COMPLETELY MISSING the point (the highlighted CYP-oo1 bit) and then truss20 posts that bedger's misinterpretation ofwhat I said is "a fact" - but its nonsense.

truss20 takes bedger's misreading of what I said then says the misreading is a fact.

This sort of uncritical not reading and not understanding and attacking the poster to discredit the argument is actually a core part of why CYP is NOT a good investment.

bedger and truss20 behaviours and values (or lack of) are symptomatic of the behaviors and values of a lot of commenting shareholders. So the commentary of shareholders is biased. So where free speach used well could be used to organise and bring together good ideas and could be used to get better accountability (accountabiluty against metrics is something CYP does terribly) and truss20 has defended dodgy poorly explained management actions for years now.

Look any new person has to make their own assessments of the quality of the comments and the substantativeness of the points raised - are they sourced - can the links be seen.

But what is ticked and what is true do not correlate. Look at the market price on the day that most of the commentary and ticks were for supposed supporters like truss20 and bedger the ticks went their way but the price went the other.