Unbelievably, you think you're making a big point.
It's NOT a drug in the context of RISK. Which is entirely what I'm talking about.
As is often the case, the relevant drafting is done to satisfy the purpose. (I should know, I used to do that kind of work. You can make a definition fit specified purposes.)
Food and Drug Administration? OK they've got responsibility. In Australia, it would be the source documents regarding the Ministerial responsibilities called the Administrative Arrangements Orders. In the US, it would be something comparable.Then there is legislation which defines further. But that's for particular administrative purposes.
When playing around with definitions, you can call it what you like. A duck is a drake. A chicken is a duck for the purposes of that legislation. It doesn't MAKE it a duck in reality.
We'll call it a drug for this purpose.
Even thought it's NOT a drug in realityl It's the same for therapeutic devices. They aren't drugs either. Only for the limited administrative purposes.
AND it's not a drug. It's a therapy using stem cells. They've called it a drug for their own administrative convenience.
BUT the problem is that doesn't make it one. It's confusing to the investor.
Who then erroneously gets the mindset of the risks for DRUGS. WHICH IS HIGH.
Calling a drug when assessing risk is just confusing and annoying and it presses the wrong buttons regarding RISK. Which for some reason, posters who never post on anything, come in simply to post on that. Because they want everyone to think the risk is high as it is for drugs.
But you're not going back and forth on it. A one hit wonder?
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)