Hi, Wolf -
I punched out a hasty comment on the G&M article this morning, on the way to work.
Since then, it's been reviewed at length, by many.
The article had its failings, and strengths. It is simply not possible that such a short piece could do justice to the subject.
Over on SH, many have addressed aspects of the coverage, including the timing: suspicion reigns. Mark dealt very well with some of the questionable phrasing. There's little left to say.
I agree that the sense, if not some particulars, is correct.
This fallout is almost inevitable, after August. Predictable. I'm surprised it took this long. There are simply too many questions, and not enough answers. The effect of continued frustration has been compounded by the failure of the company to sensibly address the issue of communication.
How can it be that DMX must remain so mysteriously tight-lipped, when other pharmas manage to keep their investors informed, without running afoul of regulatory agencies?
Now, credibility itself is the question.
The anti-RK lobby has further confused the matter. For myself, I could care less whether RK, or some other suitable individual, brings these drugs through approval. I invested in a company with drugs that should be successful, and I don't care who brings them to market.
RK will be fine. Let her stay, let her go: I don't care. I wish we could get past the question of RK.
I wish we could get to the point where we know what's going on (which shortcoming the G&M article exacerbated, but did nothing to address), and we could be assured of the company's survival until approval.
The bashers have had a field day, and the failings at DMX have been given a national airing.
The question is: what difference will it make?
Regards,
Jim |
