Evil, we agree on many things and I respect your opinions. I LinkedIn with Patterson long before 13D group surfaced and have followed his efforts to develop a test for those suffering from Long Haulers. His company has been “successful” in the development and will market the test in Europe shortly. Something to be said about relentless focus on the development of the test and bringing it to market.

I agree with all those who are concerned about engaging Patterson but think that a discussion to clear the air by current management and determine whether there is any grounds, with legal ground rules established, would/could be beneficial to both parties. The team assembled at CytoDyn now seems to be better prepared to determine whether he would be genuine in his interest in working together.

The 13D group used him to attempt a takeover. I have deep concerns about him being duped by them however he is a scientist and I do think he wants to help those suffering from the long haulers syndrome and build a company around those efforts. At the very minimum both concerns should open a discussion as to whether they could craft an agreement.

In my career I was part of teams that negotiated agreements with competitors that would seem unreasonable to outsiders. These were multimillion dollar agreements with the intent of looking out 5 years as to the benefits the agreements would have on both organizations. Many did not work out but the few that did were quite beneficial to our bottom line and growth. Keeping an open mind was the foundation for all these discussions. Times change and people change so keeping an open mind is crucial to any discussions.

I’m sure I will get numerous dislikes to this post but it is my opinion and based on experience the company should at least have a sit down and air differences. See if there is any common ground to move forward with a legally binding agreement. If not, so be it.