It's not either-or. NP should not be the public face of the company, or its spokesperson, as his indiscretions have caused a lot of trouble. (For instance, it is unwise to blurt out future plans in a conference call, when you know that competitors or those trying to take over the company might be able to use that information against the company).

He should not be allowed to say ANYTHING that is not approved by the company's attorneys. Drs. Kelly and Recknor are perfectly capable of answering questions about the company, and they are both much better at explaining the science, how the clinical trials work, etc.

It's completely possible to decide that a group of purported shareholders that have conflicts of interest are not the people you want representing your interests, AND to not want NP to speak for the company.