反正这个公司有个矛盾，如果不用真药，那么就没有效果；如果要用真药，那就要开处方。

Started two new stock positions today - first additions in a while. Both are 1% starter positions and already shared in my X Sub. Even when equity indices look stretched, there are always selective single-name opportunities. You just have to be disciplined and patient. Portfolio remains defensive - bonds as ballast. Longs: Real businesses. Real cash flow. Or asymmetric biotech setups with defined risk/reward. Shorts: Where hype still far exceeds fundamentals - especially in quantum and nuclear. 2025 delivered 75%. Now the focus is making 2026 even better. Let's lock in!

不行，他家的药吃了不硬。

Over the past 12 months, @adamfeuerstein’s X posts about Sarepta ( $SRPT ) show an unusually consistent and aggressive negative narrative - often echoing, amplifying, or previewing themes later used in STAT coverage. $SRPT $SLDB $RGNX $CRSP $EDIT $NTLA $BEAM $VRTX $REGN $BLUE $EXEL $ILMN $GILD $AMGN $PFE $MRNA $LLY $JNJ $AZN $NVO $IBB $XBI $CAPR Just a few examples, in his own words: 1. “Sarepta may not survive… the company is facing a severe cash flow and debt crisis…” (July 24, 2025) 2. “The company has never conducted a successful clinical trial… What is the acceptable death rate? There will be more Elevidys-related deaths…” (Aug 21, 2025) 3. “Sarepta’s dismal quarter marred by drug failures and a long list of excuses.” (Nov 4, 2025) 4. “The Worst Biopharma CEO of 2025… decisions with tragic consequences.” (Dec 17, 2025) (my personal favourite) These aren’t isolated reactions - they form a repeated thesis: failure, incompetence, opacity, and inevitable collapse. Now contrast that tone with the reality of Duchenne muscular dystrophy: - A fatal genetic disease that almost exclusively affects young boys - Progressive muscle loss starting in early childhood - Loss of ambulation in the early teens - Average life expectancy historically in the 20s - Families with no curative options, only hope for time Sarepta’s stated mission is to “transform the lives of patients with rare diseases.” For Duchenne families, that mission isn’t theoretical - it’s existential. That doesn’t mean safety questions shouldn’t be asked. They should. It doesn’t mean trials shouldn’t be scrutinized. They must be! But when coverage - across dozens of posts - and through his STAT news site repeatedly frames one company as reckless, deceptive, or doomed, while downplaying context, trade-offs, and the absence of alternatives, it’s fair to ask: Where does rigorous skepticism end - and personal framing begin? Readers deserve full context, families deserve seriousness and journalism works best when criticism informs - not when it feels prosecutorial!!