(Total Views: 661)
Posted On: 07/03/2021 6:09:00 PM
Post# of 148892
My mind is still open, although I currently lean one way pending learning anything new. So far I don't see an easy best choice. We should learn more on CYDY business plan progress, and I hope we learn more about 13D group intentions, before the BoD vote. I agree most people will either vote all current management or all 13D group, but I think we should be open to individual BoD votes from each group. We all have time to hear more positive/ negative about all the current and proposed individual candidates.
Ultimately it's all about enabling revenue generation, which basically runs through USFDA, and regardless of whether you blame FDA or NP/team, the current CYDY leadership has not succeeded in obtaining favorable USFDA approvals on trials and/or trial design. That said, I do like the offshore path they are following, I just don't have a warm feeling about them getting anything approved through USFDA. Granted I need to do more work on the current board over the next couple months, but I don't expect how the USFDA operates to change in the near term.
Patterson? intelligent, accomplished, excellent presenter, but the patent conflict is a conflict with my investment interests. And a potential IncellDX buyout, even at a reasonable valuation, how does that dovetail with a pre-revenue CYDY business plan? - dilution/debt is not in my best personal investment interest. I also recall something where Patterson and Fauci have carried a long term personal conflict - I'm not a fan of Fauci but as long as he's still in his role, I don't see how BP enables progress toward any approval by CYDY with USFDA. Errico/Staats both sound like accomplished doctors but recent business track record ECOR takes them off my board vote. Yaeger experience in regulatory affairs is worth consideration despite Gilead connections, but I'm not convinced yet. Rosenbaum legislative experience could be a positive - does anyone on the current board bring those experiences to CYDY?
There's an old joke where a new executive on her first day finds 3 envelopes numbered 1-3 in her new desk, with a note: "open in order at each crisis." cutting the joke short, opening each envelope proposed the following advise:
Crisis 1: blame your predessor
Crisis 2: announce re-organization
Crisis 3: make three envelopes
From what has been communicated by the now 8% group so far, all I know is they've opened the first 2 envelopes. If I have to infer the rest, following the punchline in an old joke does not get them my vote.
Ultimately it's all about enabling revenue generation, which basically runs through USFDA, and regardless of whether you blame FDA or NP/team, the current CYDY leadership has not succeeded in obtaining favorable USFDA approvals on trials and/or trial design. That said, I do like the offshore path they are following, I just don't have a warm feeling about them getting anything approved through USFDA. Granted I need to do more work on the current board over the next couple months, but I don't expect how the USFDA operates to change in the near term.
Patterson? intelligent, accomplished, excellent presenter, but the patent conflict is a conflict with my investment interests. And a potential IncellDX buyout, even at a reasonable valuation, how does that dovetail with a pre-revenue CYDY business plan? - dilution/debt is not in my best personal investment interest. I also recall something where Patterson and Fauci have carried a long term personal conflict - I'm not a fan of Fauci but as long as he's still in his role, I don't see how BP enables progress toward any approval by CYDY with USFDA. Errico/Staats both sound like accomplished doctors but recent business track record ECOR takes them off my board vote. Yaeger experience in regulatory affairs is worth consideration despite Gilead connections, but I'm not convinced yet. Rosenbaum legislative experience could be a positive - does anyone on the current board bring those experiences to CYDY?
There's an old joke where a new executive on her first day finds 3 envelopes numbered 1-3 in her new desk, with a note: "open in order at each crisis." cutting the joke short, opening each envelope proposed the following advise:
Crisis 1: blame your predessor
Crisis 2: announce re-organization
Crisis 3: make three envelopes
From what has been communicated by the now 8% group so far, all I know is they've opened the first 2 envelopes. If I have to infer the rest, following the punchline in an old joke does not get them my vote.
(10)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
