Member Info for FreeTheCaterham7

I'm very much looking forward to seeing the numbers, as well as some encouraging P/L figures

Can’t see Tommy D’s post. Has it been deleted?

"Just thought I'd quickly check in on here. Wasn't all this "peer reviewed" crap done to death a couple of weeks back?"

Yes it was. Mani set it off again by reposting the link to the Medicom report on the ATS conference.
What was established at the time was the report was "peer reviewed" to make sure it reflected what was said at the conference, but that there was no suggestion of any peer review of the SPRINTER trial, data, results or deep dive.

@Manifesto said "Now Doc.Daneeka You are making things up again..ATS have published a great review on SPRINTER...
Does that not fit with your narrative?? Let's just stick to what is real shall we......."

ATS have not, as far as I am aware, published a great review on SPRINTER. The review that Manifesto links to is not such a thing. It's a review of the conference, written and published by Medicom, a commercial organisation financed by advertising/sponsorship. It's purpose seems to be to keep interested parties in touch with what is being reported at conferences without having to actually attend.

Bang on The_Palladin.
This report on the conference by Medicom is peer reviewed in the sense that they have checked that it reflects what was presented at the conference.
IN NO WAY is it a peer review of the SPRINTER trial, data, results, or deep dive analysis.

"ATS have published a great review on SPRINTER."
Are you sure about this Manny?

What do you think was peer reviewed about the Medicom report on the ATS conference?

Source?

Manny, what do you think was "peer reviewed"?

We’re going to be fine. Hold on.

"Don’t forget they were peer reviewed !!!!!!!"

What were peer reviewed?

Why would I apologise?
I don’t believe I’ve ever said that SNG is finished, going into administration, or is due a placing. I just try to be realistic. I still have my small position in the hope that they will come good but so far management have achieved very little that offers rewards to shareholders. It’s a high risk/potentially high reward play (although I am becoming less convinced of the potential scale of reward).

I don’t see it as my "role" to criticise positive oplnions on here. I don’t see myself as having a "role" on here". I do think it’s helpful for all posters to query unrealistically positive or negative comments.

Show us the money, TB

"Just want to say I ruined my life thanks to the stupid decision to invest in this share and listening to the positive posters rather than the (now I realise) realistic negative ones."

This is why I get dragged into criticising over positive posts/posters. It can be very damaging.

"monthly reporting drives all share prices. Fact. Nothing else matters."

Ha ha good one

If you are keen to make your point you could just post a valid link

"Biggest pharmaceutical lawsuits by settlement amounT"

A search for " Pfizer "on the page that link took me to returned no results

"One of the major findings was that the vaccines
offer no protection against Long Covid!!!!"

Did anyone ever suggest they did? And BTW I think your ! key is stuck.

You should thank those who remind us of the potential downside in this (and many other) share(s)

Focusing only on the positive, and "joining the dots" is what cost us all 85% of our money.

Any board that exaggerates the positive while dismissing the negative is very damaging for investors.

Do you think your posts add value Mani?

Just trolling.