Sometimes it is better to have someone outside the

Sometimes it is better to have someone outside the box, then someone with great experience. Remember a Nasdaq CEO shelved Pro 140. The inventor of Pro 140, who served as a science guide, didn’t think mono was possible. Anyone with experience being put as CytoDyn’s CEO in 2012, they wouldn’t have had mono now. So is it better to have someone with knowledge with limits on what they feel is possible or someone with imagination of what is possible? Other BP’s have Ccr5 inhibitors, and we are the cutting edge in cancer with leronlimab, and they are being left behind. Why would a big name CEO be better, when we are advancing faster than the other big name CEOs with Ccr5 inhibitors? They have all the money. Imagine CytoDyn when money isn’t a big issue, that could be a possibility soon. Also, remember the board of directors gave the ship to Tony in 2017, someone with just as must experience as a new CEO would have, and he hit an iceberg; they gave it back to NP as the ship was sinking. NP hinted in the last video at eventually telling shareholders the mess they had to fix. Once this is approved and the complete story is told, I have a feeling NP will be vindicated with the naysayers. Even with that though, there are simple areas of improvement NP could do. The biggest is probably better timeline guidance, yes. People start doubting him with the constant shifting timelines. I can understand their frustration with that.