Let's not forget that Tony was not a CEO-type pers
Post# of 153935
(Total Views: 486)
Posted On: 11/03/2019 12:29:13 PM
Let's not forget that Tony was not a CEO-type person. He ran manufacturing. And I would guess that he was very good at doing that; but it doesn't necessarily translate into CEO skills (and it wouldn't prepare him for e.g. raising money).
And before Tony, there was Ken Van Ness (who wasn't any good at all). But we shouldn't be comparing NP vs. bad choices, we should be comparing him against professional, experienced, effective CEOs.
++++
My other comment regarding the long pro/con NP debate, is, yes, NP did pursue MONO. But to say that no one else would have is a stretch or at least a guess IMHO.
One could definitely make a cogent argument that we would be better off without having pursued MONO. Our COMBO results were more than good enough very early on. And our parallel MONO trial is what kept changing the goal posts by the FDA. We had more data (from MONO), and they kept wanting more and more. It is very likely that the FDA would have kept our COMBO trial the same as IZ. We would have been approved a long time ago and with only a fraction of the money required to be raised and diluted.
Moreover, IMO, MONO was a natural outcome from Lero. And IMO it would have come out as a use case irrespective of who was CEO. e.g COMBO patients would have started using it as MONO. All the CCR5 research data would have provided direction that it would/could work as MONO. Overlap with other indications would have directed the company to look closer into MONO.
We will never know for sure. But let's give NP full credit for MONO. Even in that case, the COMPANY would have been better off after that point in time hiring a seasoned CEO for no other reason than managing the business aspects.
But we are where we are. And as I have stated many times in the past, I invested and continue to invest in the company knowing that we have a suboptimal CEO that has not maximized the potential of the company. But the product is SOOOO good that the shareholders and the patients will benefit greatly nonetheless.
And before Tony, there was Ken Van Ness (who wasn't any good at all). But we shouldn't be comparing NP vs. bad choices, we should be comparing him against professional, experienced, effective CEOs.
++++
My other comment regarding the long pro/con NP debate, is, yes, NP did pursue MONO. But to say that no one else would have is a stretch or at least a guess IMHO.
One could definitely make a cogent argument that we would be better off without having pursued MONO. Our COMBO results were more than good enough very early on. And our parallel MONO trial is what kept changing the goal posts by the FDA. We had more data (from MONO), and they kept wanting more and more. It is very likely that the FDA would have kept our COMBO trial the same as IZ. We would have been approved a long time ago and with only a fraction of the money required to be raised and diluted.
Moreover, IMO, MONO was a natural outcome from Lero. And IMO it would have come out as a use case irrespective of who was CEO. e.g COMBO patients would have started using it as MONO. All the CCR5 research data would have provided direction that it would/could work as MONO. Overlap with other indications would have directed the company to look closer into MONO.
We will never know for sure. But let's give NP full credit for MONO. Even in that case, the COMPANY would have been better off after that point in time hiring a seasoned CEO for no other reason than managing the business aspects.
But we are where we are. And as I have stated many times in the past, I invested and continue to invest in the company knowing that we have a suboptimal CEO that has not maximized the potential of the company. But the product is SOOOO good that the shareholders and the patients will benefit greatly nonetheless.
(1)
(0)