|
|
Post by JHam on Dec 26, 2014 16:13:47 GMT
Nice job moving this post Jham. Anything to protect Bullard. What facts? That STEM was at $ .90? There was nothing to correct. about an hour ago icellman said: Jham- This is where I don't understand you. Pipedream if you think STEM is going anywhere. As for defending Bullard, he is nothing but a scumbag and 95 % of the people on this board would agree with me on that. Why you come to his defense time and again makes no sense to me. Sorry if that comes across as harsh, but it's the truth. icellman, Don't worry, nothing you could say would be too harsh since I don't really take anything you say seriously. "Pipedream if you think STEM is going anywhere." Says the guy who has ridden Ocata down to where it is today. Maybe STEM won't go anywhere. We'll have to wait and see, but the jury is still out on that, and how it pertains to Bullard's articles. "As for defending Bullard..."? I wasn't defending him. I was just straightening up the facts that you twisted. I'd do the same for you if someone twisted your words. Now I will defend him though. If you and 95% of people on this board think he is a scumbag, that is fine. You can think what you want. Knowing him, I know that he is not a scumbag. If you only knew how well he does in the market you'd would realize how foolish you sound ridiculing him and the stocks he chooses to invest in. icellman, Protecting Bullard? I moved your posts (and mine) because they are off-topic. You like to turn every thread into an off-topic rant against me or Bullard, and you are annoying 95% of everyone on the board. What about $.90? Bullard said their could be a buying opportunity for STEM as the pps was likely to drop due to uncertainty surrounding the lawsuit. That has happened. If he or anyone else has been buying or accumulating shares at the current levels, and STEM has a pop from a favorable court verdict, then his thesis will be proven successful. That's all I am saying. Results from their AMD trial are also expected in Q1/15, maybe even January. If you copy and paste your off-topic posts which I move, back to the original thread again, you will receive an automatic one week ban. Quit acting like a troll. |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Dec 26, 2014 16:26:46 GMT
Nice job moving this post Jham. Anything to protect Bullard. What facts? That STEM was at $ .90? There was nothing to correct. about an hour ago icellman said: Jham- This is where I don't understand you. Pipedream if you think STEM is going anywhere. As for defending Bullard, he is nothing but a scumbag and 95 % of the people on this board would agree with me on that. Why you come to his defense time and again makes no sense to me. Sorry if that comes across as harsh, but it's the truth. icellman, Don't worry, nothing you could say would be too harsh since I don't really take anything you say seriously. "Pipedream if you think STEM is going anywhere." Says the guy who has ridden Ocata down to where it is today. Maybe STEM won't go anywhere. We'll have to wait and see, but the jury is still out on that, and how it pertains to Bullard's articles. "As for defending Bullard..."? I wasn't defending him. I was just straightening up the facts that you twisted. I'd do the same for you if someone twisted your words. Now I will defend him though. If you and 95% of people on this board think he is a scumbag, that is fine. You can think what you want. Knowing him, I know that he is not a scumbag. If you only knew how well he does in the market you'd would realize how foolish you sound ridiculing him and the stocks he chooses to invest in. Bullard pretends to be an expert on patents and ophthalmology and writes pathetic hit pieces. And when he's called out on nit he doesn't have the decency to admit he's wrong. And it's funny to equate success in the stock market as an indication someone is not a scumbag. Tells us all we need to know about ones priorities. Never seen him pretend to be an expert on anything. He brought some good things to our attention though. Jury is still out on patents. Obviously other companies out their are not too concerned with Ocata's patent protection as they are operating freely in the space despite them. Even if Bullard did not get everything 100% correct regarding the science (and I am not saying he didn't), he was exactly correct that Ocata over-hyped results from the cowboy patient, and the cataract issue came into play. End result was that as he feared, the market was confused and not impressed by the data. |
|
|
|
Post by CM kipper007 on Dec 26, 2014 17:01:43 GMT
Bullard pretends to be an expert on patents and ophthalmology and writes pathetic hit pieces. And when he's called out on nit he doesn't have the decency to admit he's wrong. And it's funny to equate success in the stock market as an indication someone is not a scumbag. Tells us all we need to know about ones priorities. Never seen him pretend to be an expert on anything. He brought some good things to our attention though. Jury is still out on patents. Obviously other companies out their are not too concerned with Ocata's patent protection as they are operating freely in the space despite them. Even if Bullard did not get everything 100% correct regarding the science (and I am not saying he didn't), he was exactly correct that Ocata over-hyped results from the cowboy patient, and the cataract issue came into play. End result was that as he feared, the market was confused and not impressed by the data. This again? Jham, You have blinders on if you think bullard's article about cataracts is the same as patients enveloping cataracts post surgery. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbang on Dec 26, 2014 17:37:28 GMT
Bullard pretends to be an expert on patents and ophthalmology and writes pathetic hit pieces. And when he's called out on nit he doesn't have the decency to admit he's wrong. And it's funny to equate success in the stock market as an indication someone is not a scumbag. Tells us all we need to know about ones priorities. Never seen him pretend to be an expert on anything. He brought some good things to our attention though. Jury is still out on patents. Obviously other companies out their are not too concerned with Ocata's patent protection as they are operating freely in the space despite them. Even if Bullard did not get everything 100% correct regarding the science (and I am not saying he didn't), he was exactly correct that Ocata over-hyped results from the cowboy patient, and the cataract issue came into play. End result was that as he feared, the market was confused and not impressed by the data. On what planet was he correct about the cataracts in terms of the results? Did you even read the paper? And you don't think your friend Bullard was not partially responsible for the market confusion with his SA write up which was lambasted by ophthalmologists? And don't get me started about patents where he used West as one of his sources against OCATA |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Dec 26, 2014 18:33:17 GMT
Never seen him pretend to be an expert on anything. He brought some good things to our attention though. Jury is still out on patents. Obviously other companies out their are not too concerned with Ocata's patent protection as they are operating freely in the space despite them. Even if Bullard did not get everything 100% correct regarding the science (and I am not saying he didn't), he was exactly correct that Ocata over-hyped results from the cowboy patient, and the cataract issue came into play. End result was that as he feared, the market was confused and not impressed by the data. This again? Jham, You have blinders on if you think bullard's article about cataracts is the same as patients enveloping cataracts post surgery. Yes this again, even though I had no desire to bring it up. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? I don't think it is the same. I am not sure why this is so hard for people to get. I am not saying that I believe cataracts have anything to do with seeing biological changes in the back of the retina due to an injection of RPE cells. I am saying (and as I have said from the very beginning), that the market will not (did not) want to see that the "exceptional" patients touted by the company also had cataract surgery prior. Or that cataracts developed post-op. *EVEN IF CATARACTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RESULTS GOOD OR BAD OBSERVED BY THE PATIENT*. That is what I got out of Bullard's article, whether the study he pulled from the NIH site had relevance or not. |
|
|
|
Post by CM kipper007 on Dec 26, 2014 18:47:13 GMT
This again? Jham, You have blinders on if you think bullard's article about cataracts is the same as patients enveloping cataracts post surgery. Yes this again, even though I had no desire to bring it up. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? I don't think it is the same. I am not sure why this is so hard for people to get. I am not saying that I believe cataracts have anything to do with seeing biological changes in the back of the retina due to an injection of RPE cells. I am saying (and as I have said from the very beginning), that the market will not (did not) want to see that the "exceptional" patients touted by the company also had cataract surgery prior. Or that cataracts developed post-op. *EVEN IF CATARACTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RESULTS GOOD OR BAD OBSERVED BY THE PATIENT*. That is what I got out of Bullard's article, whether the study he pulled from the NIH site had relevance or not. I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. You're saying 'the cataract issue came into play', not me. There's two scenarios with cataracts; a fictitious prior one and a real one post. By saying bullard's cataracts issue came into play, you're saying they are the same. |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Dec 26, 2014 18:47:57 GMT
Never seen him pretend to be an expert on anything. He brought some good things to our attention though. Jury is still out on patents. Obviously other companies out their are not too concerned with Ocata's patent protection as they are operating freely in the space despite them. Even if Bullard did not get everything 100% correct regarding the science (and I am not saying he didn't), he was exactly correct that Ocata over-hyped results from the cowboy patient, and the cataract issue came into play. End result was that as he feared, the market was confused and not impressed by the data. On what planet was he correct about the cataracts in terms of the results? Did you even read the paper? And you don't think your friend Bullard was not partially responsible for the market confusion with his SA write up which was lambasted by ophthalmologists? And don't get me started about patents where he used West as one of his sources against OCATA See above about cataracts. As for Bullard's article adding to the confusion? Of course I don't think it did. I am surprised you think it did too. If it is clearly so full of errors and and such a terrible article as you believe, then it would have been just as obvious to those who move the pps when the data was published as well. I have never been a big fan of West. However, when the guy (West) who wrote most of the patents in question while at ACTC/Ocata, says that they aren't fully protective, and backs it up by starting a trial of his own which would seem to be infringing on those patents, then I would at least like to have more clarity on the issue. Especially if I had a lot of money riding on the line. |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Dec 26, 2014 18:53:08 GMT
Yes this again, even though I had no desire to bring it up. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? I don't think it is the same. I am not sure why this is so hard for people to get. I am not saying that I believe cataracts have anything to do with seeing biological changes in the back of the retina due to an injection of RPE cells. I am saying (and as I have said from the very beginning), that the market will not (did not) want to see that the "exceptional" patients touted by the company also had cataract surgery prior. Or that cataracts developed post-op. *EVEN IF CATARACTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RESULTS GOOD OR BAD OBSERVED BY THE PATIENT*. That is what I got out of Bullard's article, whether the study he pulled from the NIH site had relevance or not. I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. You're saying 'the cataract issue came into play', not me. There's two scenarios with cataracts; a fictitious prior one and a real one post. By saying bullard's cataracts issue came into play, you're saying they are the same. Good then we have nothing left to talk about regarding Bullard and his article. What is your opinion as to why the Lancet publication was a dud in terms of positive market response? |
|
|
|
Post by CM kipper007 on Dec 26, 2014 19:30:17 GMT
I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. You're saying 'the cataract issue came into play', not me. There's two scenarios with cataracts; a fictitious prior one and a real one post. By saying bullard's cataracts issue came into play, you're saying they are the same. Good then we have nothing left to talk about regarding Bullard and his article. What is your opinion as to why the Lancet publication was a dud in terms of positive market response? What has that got to do with you being unable to differentiate between the cataracts scenarios? But if you just want to talk about random things, being good at trading and being a good person are completely unrelated. You might have a personal relationship with Bullard, but the only representation I've seen of him is he's a great writer to confuse people and a scumbag. That's my opinion, I've gained it from reading his articles to bash a company and then shy away when real experts question him. I'm not the only one and you're pushing the tide back trying to convince people otherwise. I honestly can't think of a positive thing to say about him. It's a shame this is your site Jham, because there's a real conflict of interest. |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Dec 26, 2014 20:33:54 GMT
Good then we have nothing left to talk about regarding Bullard and his article. What is your opinion as to why the Lancet publication was a dud in terms of positive market response? But if you just want to talk about random things, being good at trading and being a good person are completely unrelated. You might have a personal relationship with Bullard, but the only representation I've seen of him is he's a great writer to confuse people and a scumbag. That's my opinion, I've gained it from reading his articles to bash a company and then shy away when real experts question him. I'm not the only one and you're pushing the tide back trying to convince people otherwise. I honestly can't think of a positive thing to say about him. It's a shame this is your site Jham, because there's a real conflict of interest. I am not trying to make that differentiation, and that is the point. Differentiating between the scenarios is not important to me in how it relates to what I got out of the article. I am not "pushing the tide back trying to convince people" of anything. And there you go again assuming you know my intentions. I can't say anything else on Bullard's articles and my opinion of them and him, than I already have. I'll just wrap it up by saying those who get it, get it and those who don't, dont. I would like for you to explain how there is a conflict of interest. What is the conflict? Because we disagree with one another? I host a free board. You choose to post here. People can say what they want as long as it is on the topic of the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by CM kipper007 on Dec 26, 2014 21:08:59 GMT
What has that got to do with you being unable to differentiate between the cataracts scenarios? But if you just want to talk about random things, being good at trading and being a good person are completely unrelated. You might have a personal relationship with Bullard, but the only representation I've seen of him is he's a great writer to confuse people and a scumbag. That's my opinion, I've gained it from reading his articles to bash a company and then shy away when real experts question him. I'm not the only one and you're pushing the tide back trying to convince people otherwise. I honestly can't think of a positive thing to say about him. It's a shame this is your site Jham, because there's a real conflict of interest. I am not trying to make that differentiation, and that is the point. Differentiating between the scenarios is not important to me in how it relates to what I got out of the article. I am not "pushing the tide back trying to convince people" of anything. And there you go again assuming you know my intentions. I can't say anything else on Bullard's articles and my opinion of them and him, than I already have. I'll just wrap it up by saying those who get it, get it and those who don't, dont. I would like for you to explain how there is a conflict of interest. What is the conflict? Because we disagree with one another? I host a free board. You choose to post here. People can say what they want as long as it is on the topic of the thread. By not understanding the different scenarios either through choice or understanding probably puts you in the 'don't get it' group. The conflict exists because bullard's written a series of errors and negative articles regarding ocat. After the cataract hack job you were the only person on the forum defending him. Pretty much everyone (including jck) agreed on that until Bullard came to the forum (there's a big question mark regarding what happened there for me). It was written to put the company in a bad light to discredit their science. The fact that you're friends with him and so are unable to acknowledge that is a conflict of interest (for me anyway). When something is so glaringly obvious, and the owner of the site can't admit it, how can that not be a conflict? I'm sure you're the same and have had enough of butting heads on this so I'll not post any more today, but people are judged by the company they keep. Sorry for any typos but on my mobile device and kid watching. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbang on Dec 26, 2014 21:16:29 GMT
What has that got to do with you being unable to differentiate between the cataracts scenarios? But if you just want to talk about random things, being good at trading and being a good person are completely unrelated. You might have a personal relationship with Bullard, but the only representation I've seen of him is he's a great writer to confuse people and a scumbag. That's my opinion, I've gained it from reading his articles to bash a company and then shy away when real experts question him. I'm not the only one and you're pushing the tide back trying to convince people otherwise. I honestly can't think of a positive thing to say about him. It's a shame this is your site Jham, because there's a real conflict of interest. I am not trying to make that differentiation, and that is the point. Differentiating between the scenarios is not important to me in how it relates to what I got out of the article. I am not "pushing the tide back trying to convince people" of anything. And there you go again assuming you know my intentions. I can't say anything else on Bullard's articles and my opinion of them and him, than I already have. I'll just wrap it up by saying those who get it, get it and those who don't, dont. I would like for you to explain how there is a conflict of interest. What is the conflict? Because we disagree with one another? I host a free board. You choose to post here. People can say what they want as long as it is on the topic of the thread. The problem is you continue to defend Bullard when he was wrong. If cataracts were the problems of these patients I think one of the top ophthalmic centers in the world would have recognized that as the cause of their poor visual acuity. Did patients develop cataracts because of the procedure? Yes. And that is a well known complication of the procedure. In terms of conflict of interest you never responded if you had an ongoing dialog with Bullard about his articles and when he would publish them. Even Horus sent you a screenshot of a comment he made on Seeking Alpha that Bullard sited a private email from you. And Bullard even claimed that he talks to you regularly. And you won't even admit if you have knowledge before he writes one of his hit pieces; and yes, they are hit pieces with many errors in them that a lay person reading them could and would become confused. And could be used to manipulate the share price. You can hem and haw about this but you were the only one supporting his baseless, erroneous assertions. And to say he's not a scumbag because he makes money in the market is laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by darkest on Dec 27, 2014 5:32:01 GMT
I am not trying to make that differentiation, and that is the point. Differentiating between the scenarios is not important to me in how it relates to what I got out of the article. I am not "pushing the tide back trying to convince people" of anything. And there you go again assuming you know my intentions. I can't say anything else on Bullard's articles and my opinion of them and him, than I already have. I'll just wrap it up by saying those who get it, get it and those who don't, dont. I would like for you to explain how there is a conflict of interest. What is the conflict? Because we disagree with one another? I host a free board. You choose to post here. People can say what they want as long as it is on the topic of the thread. The problem is you continue to defend Bullard when he was wrong. If cataracts were the problems of these patients I think one of the top ophthalmic centers in the world would have recognized that as the cause of their poor visual acuity. Did patients develop cataracts because of the procedure? Yes. And that is a well known complication of the procedure. In terms of conflict of interest you never responded if you had an ongoing dialog with Bullard about his articles and when he would publish them. Even Horus sent you a screenshot of a comment he made on Seeking Alpha that Bullard sited a private email from you. And Bullard even claimed that he talks to you regularly. And you won't even admit if you have knowledge before he writes one of his hit pieces; and yes, they are hit pieces with many errors in them that a lay person reading them could and would become confused. And could be used to manipulate the share price. You can hem and haw about this but you were the only one supporting his baseless, erroneous assertions. And to say he's not a scumbag because he makes money in the market is laughable. To say you're not a scumbag is really laughable too. Why don't you just leave if you don't like the owner? Why post here? What's your agenda? |
|
|
|
Post by bigbang on Dec 27, 2014 11:38:21 GMT
The problem is you continue to defend Bullard when he was wrong. If cataracts were the problems of these patients I think one of the top ophthalmic centers in the world would have recognized that as the cause of their poor visual acuity. Did patients develop cataracts because of the procedure? Yes. And that is a well known complication of the procedure. In terms of conflict of interest you never responded if you had an ongoing dialog with Bullard about his articles and when he would publish them. Even Horus sent you a screenshot of a comment he made on Seeking Alpha that Bullard sited a private email from you. And Bullard even claimed that he talks to you regularly. And you won't even admit if you have knowledge before he writes one of his hit pieces; and yes, they are hit pieces with many errors in them that a lay person reading them could and would become confused. And could be used to manipulate the share price. You can hem and haw about this but you were the only one supporting his baseless, erroneous assertions. And to say he's not a scumbag because he makes money in the market is laughable. To say you're not a scumbag is really laughable too. Why don't you just leave if you don't like the owner? Why post here? What's your agenda? I actually like reading some of the commentators on this site. By the way speaking of scumbags how did your email campaign go with Discover? and are you Eigenman or Bullard? |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Dec 27, 2014 20:43:15 GMT
I am not trying to make that differentiation, and that is the point. Differentiating between the scenarios is not important to me in how it relates to what I got out of the article. I am not "pushing the tide back trying to convince people" of anything. And there you go again assuming you know my intentions. I can't say anything else on Bullard's articles and my opinion of them and him, than I already have. I'll just wrap it up by saying those who get it, get it and those who don't, dont. I would like for you to explain how there is a conflict of interest. What is the conflict? Because we disagree with one another? I host a free board. You choose to post here. People can say what they want as long as it is on the topic of the thread. The problem is you continue to defend Bullard when he was wrong. If cataracts were the problems of these patients I think one of the top ophthalmic centers in the world would have recognized that as the cause of their poor visual acuity. Did patients develop cataracts because of the procedure? Yes. And that is a well known complication of the procedure. In terms of conflict of interest you never responded if you had an ongoing dialog with Bullard about his articles and when he would publish them. Even Horus sent you a screenshot of a comment he made on Seeking Alpha that Bullard sited a private email from you. And Bullard even claimed that he talks to you regularly. And you won't even admit if you have knowledge before he writes one of his hit pieces; and yes, they are hit pieces with many errors in them that a lay person reading them could and would become confused. And could be used to manipulate the share price. You can hem and haw about this but you were the only one supporting his baseless, erroneous assertions. And to say he's not a scumbag because he makes money in the market is laughable. This paragraph explains why we are so far apart on this. It isn't a matter of him being right or wrong. That is why you and some others get so hung up on this and I don't. It wasn't a scientific paper, it was an opinion piece. He intentionally didn't say definitively one way or another. Specifically, he did not say that cataracts were the problem for these patients, you did. What he said is that there is data out there listed on the NIH website showing that cataract surgery could have an impact when measuring visual acuity results in an AMD trial. He then explains how Ocata's touted prize patient also had cataracts/cataract surgery and proposes that it could have an impact on the results. And at the very least, whether cataracts truly have an impact or not, that the market could poo-poo the results if they know that the prize patient also had cataract complications/surgery before the trial. He didn't say without a doubt that it would or it wouldn't. He wasn't writing in absolutes saying that he is right and this is for sure what will happen. He said there is a chance and then let's the reader decide for themselves whether or not they feel if it is pertinent or a potential issue. The problem is you continue to attack him when you are misinterpreting the article. That is why I defend him. "In terms of conflict of interest you never responded if you had an ongoing dialog with Bullard about his articles and when he would publish them. Even Horus sent you a screenshot of a comment he made on Seeking Alpha that Bullard sited a private email from you. And Bullard even claimed that he talks to you regularly."What do you mean? I have never tried to hide the fact that Bullard and I are friends. I have said that from the beginning and not sure why that is a big deal. He has taught me a ton and I am very appreciative of all the time he has spent dumbifying things for me over the years. "And you won't even admit if you have knowledge before he writes one of his hit pieces; and yes, they are hit pieces with many errors in them that a lay person reading them could and would become confused. And could be used to manipulate the share price."I don't "admit" anything, because there is nothing to admit. Just because you and a handful of others think this is somehow important, it isn't. It is obviously a damned if I do damned if I don't situation on something that has zero relevance. Instead of giving those foolish enough to think there is something of relevance there fuel to feed their silly agenda/conspiracy theories, I chose not to answer. Bullard and I talk about all sorts of things. If something we talked about eventually makes it into a SA article I am not surprised, because at some point in the past we probably discussed it. No different than how none of you here would be in the wrong if I decided to suddenly write an SA article about something we have discussed somewhere on this board at some point. Hell, a few months ago on the ONCS Yahoo board, one of the posters even said he was writing a positive SA article to be published soon and was asking people to help contribute any information to it. Everyone knew it was coming and guess what, no one cared. Not even those shorting the stock. Guess what else. I had been accumulating shares long before, at the time of, and after the SA article publication. After it was published, the pps even rose a little bit. Should I have felt guilty for buying shares before I knew an article was about to be published? Of course not. I can't control when and what he writes about. Just like I can't with Bullard. As I have said in the past, I have never timed a trade based on any kind pre-knowledge of a SA article publication with any of the stocks I follow. Either you believe me or you don't, but that is not something I am concerned about since it doesn't have any relevance to anything. "You can hem and haw about this but you were the only one supporting his baseless, erroneous assertions. And to say he's not a scumbag because he makes money in the market is laughable."I was not the only one, but definitely in the minority. That only confirmed some of our thoughts about how "open-minded" the Ocata cult is. He is a scumbag because he does well in his investment decisions? I wouldn't want to answer people in the comment section of SA or here on this board either when people misinterpret my article and call me names. |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Dec 27, 2014 21:03:30 GMT
I am not trying to make that differentiation, and that is the point. Differentiating between the scenarios is not important to me in how it relates to what I got out of the article. I am not "pushing the tide back trying to convince people" of anything. And there you go again assuming you know my intentions. I can't say anything else on Bullard's articles and my opinion of them and him, than I already have. I'll just wrap it up by saying those who get it, get it and those who don't, dont. I would like for you to explain how there is a conflict of interest. What is the conflict? Because we disagree with one another? I host a free board. You choose to post here. People can say what they want as long as it is on the topic of the thread. By not understanding the different scenarios either through choice or understanding probably puts you in the 'don't get it' group. The conflict exists because bullard's written a series of errors and negative articles regarding ocat. After the cataract hack job you were the only person on the forum defending him. Pretty much everyone (including jck) agreed on that until Bullard came to the forum (there's a big question mark regarding what happened there for me). It was written to put the company in a bad light to discredit their science. The fact that you're friends with him and so are unable to acknowledge that is a conflict of interest (for me anyway). When something is so glaringly obvious, and the owner of the site can't admit it, how can that not be a conflict? I'm sure you're the same and have had enough of butting heads on this so I'll not post any more today, but people are judged by the company they keep. Sorry for any typos but on my mobile device and kid watching.
When something is so glaringly obvious, and the owner of the site can't admit it, how can that not be a conflict?" Still doesn't answer how that is a conflict of interest. What you are describing is a difference of opinion. Not a conflict of interest. I defended him because people were a) misinterpreting the article and b) making it personal about him instead of disagreeing with his opinion in the article. I don't care what "pretty much everyone" says. Opinions in multitudes aren't necessarily the correct ones. If we sided with the majority every time Gary Rabin would probably still be CEO. A conflict of interest is when your lead trial investigator starts a company directly competing against the treatment he is supposed to be helping you bring to the market. Not some guy who writes an opinion article. Even if it was flawed. Besides, the guy said that he expected the data to be good and allow them to have a broad Phase 2 trial design. Which is all you can hope for after Phase 1. How is that trying to put the company in a bad light and discredit their science? Again you are reading what you want to read and not what was written. Glaringly obvious. "...people are judged by the company they keep."Agreed, which is why I am very proud to call Bullard a friend. |
|
horus
Junior Member
Posts: 96 
|
Post by horus on Dec 28, 2014 17:42:13 GMT
"The problem is you continue to defend Bullard when he was wrong. If cataracts were the problems of these patients I think one of the top ophthalmic centers in the world would have recognized that as the cause of their poor visual acuity. Did patients develop cataracts because of the procedure? Yes. And that is a well known complication of the procedure."This paragraph explains why we are so far apart on this. It isn't a matter of him being right or wrong. That is why you and some others get so hung up on this and I don't. It wasn't a scientific paper, it was an opinion piece. He intentionally didn't say definitively one way or another. Specifically, he did not say that cataracts were the problem for these patients, you did. What he said is that there is data out there listed on the NIH website showing that cataract surgery could have an impact when measuring visual acuity results in an AMD trial. He then explains how Ocata's touted prize patient also had cataracts/cataract surgery and proposes that it could have an impact on the results. And at the very least, whether cataracts truly have an impact or not, that the market could poo-poo the results if they know that the prize patient also had cataract complications/surgery before the trial. He didn't say without a doubt that it would or it wouldn't. He wasn't writing in absolutes saying that he is right and this is for sure what will happen. He said there is a chance and then let's the reader decide for themselves whether or not they feel if it is pertinent or a potential issue. The problem is you continue to attack him when you are misinterpreting the article. That is why I defend him. "In terms of conflict of interest you never responded if you had an ongoing dialog with Bullard about his articles and when he would publish them. Even Horus sent you a screenshot of a comment he made on Seeking Alpha that Bullard sited a private email from you. And Bullard even claimed that he talks to you regularly."What do you mean? I have never tried to hide the fact that Bullard and I are friends. I have said that from the beginning and not sure why that is a big deal. He has taught me a ton and I am very appreciative of all the time he has spent dumbifying things for me over the years.
"And you won't even admit if you have knowledge before he writes one of his hit pieces; and yes, they are hit pieces with many errors in them that a lay person reading them could and would become confused. And could be used to manipulate the share price."I don't "admit" anything, because there is nothing to admit. Just because you and a handful of others think this is somehow important, it isn't. It is obviously a damned if I do damned if I don't situation on something that has zero relevance. Instead of giving those foolish enough to think there is something of relevance there fuel to feed their silly agenda/conspiracy theories, I chose not to answer. Bullard and I talk about all sorts of things. If something we talked about eventually makes it into a SA article I am not surprised, because at some point in the past we probably discussed it. No different than how none of you here would be in the wrong if I decided to suddenly write an SA article about something we have discussed somewhere on this board at some point. Hell, a few months ago on the ONCS Yahoo board, one of the posters even said he was writing a positive SA article to be published soon and was asking people to help contribute any information to it. Everyone knew it was coming and guess what, no one cared. Not even those shorting the stock. Guess what else. I had been accumulating shares long before, at the time of, and after the SA article publication. After it was published, the pps even rose a little bit. Should I have felt guilty for buying shares before I knew an article was about to be published? Of course not. I can't control when and what he writes about. Just like I can't with Bullard. As I have said in the past, I have never timed a trade based on any kind pre-knowledge of a SA article publication with any of the stocks I follow. Either you believe me or you don't, but that is not something I am concerned about since it doesn't have any relevance to anything. "You can hem and haw about this but you were the only one supporting his baseless, erroneous assertions. And to say he's not a scumbag because he makes money in the market is laughable."I was not the only one, but definitely in the minority. That only confirmed some of our thoughts about how "open-minded" the Ocata cult is. He is a scumbag because he does well in his investment decisions? I wouldn't want to answer people in the comment section of SA or here on this board either when people misinterpret my article and call me names.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbang on Dec 30, 2014 20:03:15 GMT
I wish this was true. But I'm sure it's not. They've tried to put a smokescreen around their ineptitude, but we can all see right through it. Especially the institutions who won't pay more than $4 or $5 for this crap wonton and co. have created. Seriously, Do you post anything worthwhile except "worthless this", "crap that" , "pieces of crap" ..... You should just sell this "POS" stock and leave. Your posts are just internet dribble. |
|
|
|
Post by invest on Dec 30, 2014 20:54:44 GMT
Hophead used to be one of the most respected posters around back in the day... Maybe if she knew she is now just about as slummy as Rabin she would stop with her bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aerin328 on Dec 30, 2014 21:11:55 GMT
The "ignore" button has been helpful. I don't mean to pile on but this board's quality level increased for me with certain use of the "ignore" feature.
|
|
