I think it's very important to point out Roth is not employed by VLA to produce that report - they are an analyst. Roth's people are not Viralytics' people. In the same way that VLA couldn't stop Roth from publishing a report saying the stock is a terrible investment, they can't stop them from publishing a report saying it's a brilliant investment. The purpose of Roth's report is not and has never been to explain VLA's technical results to VLA shareholders and VLA have little control over how Roth chooses to present/explain/focus on results. Roth have a blue sky view of SP - at 5x current SP one would expect their reports to be extremely positive or there would be no obvious basis for their price target. Yes, scepticism is important - but it's critical to make the distinction between whom is saying what. Roth does not speak for Viralytics - they speak about them and give their interpretation or opinion of the results. It's entirely your perogative whether you agree with Roth's opinion or not
I actually have a different opinion from you regarding technical data - I start to worry about smokescreens when a company hides behind a layperson's summary and does not show the actual technical data!! That's obfuscation as there is no way for an investor to verify their word - it's easy to say results look amazing when you don't show them. With technical data you can do your own research and read the data for yourself (or if you can't, have someone you trust who can understand the data for you.) From a technical standpoint (in my opinion only - DYOR), the data looks good and the layperson summaries by VLA seems reasonable in terms of claims (yes they could be more explanatory) but again - always DYOR!! Yes, a company will always focus on the positive results, as does VLA - but this is true and expected of every company - if they didn't they'd never convince investors to invest. Imagine a car salesman with an excellent car only focusing on the little details that were the weakest aspects of that car - you wouldn't buy that model, would you? Even though it was excellent, all you'd heard was the things wrong with it and you'd buy a competitor's model. Presenting research is similar - yes, it's extremely important (and legally required) to not whitewash any weaknesses or limitations but you have to primarily focus on the benefits or your lab would be out of research money/publications/investors extremely quickly. As everyone does, VLA can be a little quick to view the promise of preclinical work as a future treatment, but that's how the process works. Preclinical cell work has to be promising to go to animal work. Animal work has to be very promising to go Phase 1 trials. Which have to be very promising to go to Phase II etc. As long as the science is rigourous at each step, one expects progression to the next step (which has inherent risk of failure, but the better the results in the previous step the more likely there will be good results.) I see promising technical results and no smokescreen here - but again, that's my opinion and you should form your own.
Yes, Viralytics should do a better job of explaining their technical data in layperson's terms. But their ability to explain do that is entirely separate from their ability to conduct good research. And that is entirely separate from how analysts or indeed, individal shareholders choose to interpret that research. Food for thought from a different perspective hopefully
