IMHO, in the pro vs. negative debate on NP, is whe

IMHO, in the pro vs. negative debate on NP, is where should the kudos be placed and where should the blame be placed.

IMHO, almost all of the successes are based almost entirely on the product and its success. In other words, things outside of NP's control. Most of the reputable scientists etc have come to the company based on the drug -- not because of NP. And the FDA is positive/supportive of the product, it has nothing to do with NP. (His personal presentation style is most likely off-putting to the FDA just as it is to virtually all investors).

In contrast, most of the negatives are almost entirely in NP's control: expectation setting, inability to raise capital from institutional investors, raising capital in the "easiest" (some would say laziest) manner via Paulson, raising capital in small increments at ever increasingly lower prices instead of creating a runway long ago at a much higher SP, significant turnover inside the company and BOD, ineffective communication, inability to get mass media attention, waiting until the 11th hour to sign a licensing deal -- in other words, all the business aspects.

IMHO, NP deserves credit for: 1) pivoting from Cytolin to Lero via buying the compound, 2) Nita R.'s deal with Samsung, and 3) his dogged determination to see this through. He is a pitbull and that has come in handy many times when the company's back was up against the wall.

IMHO, if he were a seasoned effective executive, we would be trading north of $1.5B now, with a fraction of the dilution we have experienced. But the bulldog in him will get us over the finish line eventually.