Whoa everyone, this talk of battlers is getting a bit...

Whoa everyone, this talk of battlers is getting a bit serious.
Whatever your situation @dealmein, good luck to you mate!
The invention of shares and the stockmarket, which I think began with the Dutch and the British, is one of the great fintech innovations - and it is open to everyone able to stump up the cash.
As an adult, we get to take risks, and we all know what the risk is for any stock - yes I have gone through this too!

However we are now in a world of fake news, which can be amplified dramatically by social media (including HC)!
Using the wording of the FDA papers, some players saw a chance to short the stock, and they took it.
I feel sorry for the newbies here, who are less able to judge these things - as a scientist (in a different field) the FDA material looked like a standard tough scientific peer review process. Indeed, it has to be: after all, this is the committee who licence new drugs to the US population.
The process was open, and MSB were given their comments in advance and had the opportunity to respond.
We also heard various conspiracy theories about the committee discriminating against an Australian company - I very much doubted this - these committees are made up of technocrats. They have to be! Dirty politics might happen, but even with Trump's maladministration, it will do so at a higher level.
That said, I am still delighted that MSB came through with the professional arguments and won the day - well done!
It could always have gone the other way, leading to a long drawn-out process or stalemate.
That was our risk.
From all this I am highly impressed with the capability of the MSB leadership and team.
(and thanks to the shorters, I was able to pick up some more stock which I never intended to get!)

If the popular media really understood how tough the scientific peer review process is, there would be far less confusion over the evidence for climate change - but that is a different topic.