I'm a little confused about a couple of the statements made in the article: 1. “If Kaiser Permanente releases a drug that cures all cancers, is the stock price

I'm a little confused about a couple of the statements made in the article: 1. “If Kaiser Permanente releases a drug that cures all cancers, is the stock price guaranteed to go up? No, of course not. The stock price goes up or down based on supply and demand. It only responds to human action. And, therefore, the price of a stock is solely determined by how people think about the price of a stock." - Am I wrong in thinking that the price of the stock is correlated with the value of the company which is much less influenced by what stockholders think and much more based on what people think of the value of the product/service? Whoever invents the cure for cancer is going to see a huge increase in their stock price because people are going to buy their drugs, increasing revenue, profits, ROE, dividends, growth. etc. What is the author trying to say? 2. "Right now, the only sane choice is to aim for an acquisition. But mergers and acquisitions are on average $100 million a piece. There’s no way to have a company as large as Hyperloop acquired because it’s a multi billion-dollar company. You just can’t do it." What about motorola (12.5bn) youtube (1.5bn) and instagram (1bn) just to name a few? Just because a company is valued over $1bn doesn't mean there's no more room for growth and a subsequent exit? Shotgun Investing vs. Value Investing - Doesn't the government sometimes fill the role of value investor? Especially in cases of infrastructure like the hyperloop? Any clarification would be appreciated.