I don't understand how at this point focusing on N

I don't understand how at this point focusing on Nader makes much sense. Your arguments are valid for sure, but there is very little chance the BOD are going to fire or replace Nader.

His strong points are that he is dedicated and tenacious, will not give up attitude. the weakness is experience and lack of resourcefulness. We should have had a wide array of funding sources instead of one well that created a pattern that ground down the SP.

However, their have been many hurdles that would have stopped others in there tracks, many would have given up. Nader did not, I am sure he is aware that he has never gotten a drug through he FDA process and raised hundreds of millions to pay for it. We had an experienced leader with the right resume in Tony C, not that he is a bad person but nothing happened under his watch. He just stopped the process for a year for some reason. We also had DR Pestell, We all thought he was a great new leader, but we all know what happened.

So , which would you take? resume and experience or a never give up attitude? one of those got us to BLA, the other did not.