(Total Views: 564)
Posted On: 09/10/2019 9:52:10 PM
Post# of 153930
This is irrelevant now, but I think the Gates Foundation made a mistake by not partnering with CYDY 2 years ago when the mono data started to come back strong. At that point we were only about 275 million shares fully diluted.
If they had provided $200 million in funding (<1 percent of their assets) , CYDY would have been financially set, and CYDY could have then partnered with them to produce leronlimab profit free for the developing world. Most monoclonal ABs can be produced at <$1 a vial once the manufacturing process is fully developed and at scale. The foundation could have supported this production and wiped out the HIV epidemic--their top concern--and CYDY would be fully funded to pursue its own goals with no further dilution to shareholders (<300 million shares total)
I know the Foundation does not support for profit biotechs, but with certain diseases-especially one so critical to the third world and their mission, they should have been thinking outside the box. Both entities are also based in Washington St., making networking easier.
If they had provided $200 million in funding (<1 percent of their assets) , CYDY would have been financially set, and CYDY could have then partnered with them to produce leronlimab profit free for the developing world. Most monoclonal ABs can be produced at <$1 a vial once the manufacturing process is fully developed and at scale. The foundation could have supported this production and wiped out the HIV epidemic--their top concern--and CYDY would be fully funded to pursue its own goals with no further dilution to shareholders (<300 million shares total)
I know the Foundation does not support for profit biotechs, but with certain diseases-especially one so critical to the third world and their mission, they should have been thinking outside the box. Both entities are also based in Washington St., making networking easier.
(1)
(0)
