These statements hold good for RAC too. You’re exhibiting...

These statements hold good for RAC too. You’re exhibiting classic confirmation bias, desperately trying to rationalize your investment in RAC despite a lack of compelling evidence. You’re down significantly from your initial investment, yet you cling to speculative valuations based on “potential” rather than clear market dynamics or data. The company's valuation hinges on a pipeline that has struggled to demonstrate superiority over existing standards of care, in heavily biased studies conducted in narrow patient populations. further on the target market is highly competitive and saturated

Now, you're repeating the same mistakes with Bisantrene. The data from the trials doesn’t conclusively support its efficacy or justify a premium valuation. Despite its claimed cardioprotective benefits, the unmet need it addresses is limited, and the potential market impact is marginal. Moreover, safety claims mean little if efficacy is questionable, as low efficacy inherently reduces the likelihood of adverse events. Where’s the win here?

Your argument that RAC’s market cap is supported by its pipeline ignores critical realities. Zantrene’s positioning against SoC therapies is weak, and there’s no strong evidence of commercial viability. Even in its niche indications, the market potential is constrained. Oncology is an extremely competitive space, and the presence of entrenched competitors with superior datasets makes it harder for latecomers to gain traction.In short, RAC’s upside potential is limited at best. Institutional skepticism is evident from the building short interest and the company’s reliance on dilutive capital raises. The CEO’s opposition to further discounts reflects strategic desperation rather than confidence. Investors must critically evaluate the risks and rewards, particularly in a market environment where speculative plays are heavily scrutinized.