Interesting poster on SA
OU2G
Comments188 | + Follow
Dr. Patterson nails it again and has put fear into those shorting this company. I have no doubt the share price will be going up on Monday because he infused confidence into the blackhole of certainty Nader creates.
It is time CYDY admit that Bruce is a ringer for representing the Covid 19 indications for Leronlimab. Bruce CREATED the science and IS the best most credible spokesperson for CYDY on CV19 and Cancer - period. Dr. Jay is nice, Dr. Yang is helpful however Dr. Patterson is the most important to shareholders... not just for PR.
Ask yourself, where would the share price be if Bruce was welcomed to collaborate with CYDY vs. being pushed away by Nader and Kelly. Could we have held around $8, 20% off the high pre June 30th short attack during these volatile OTC days?
Why didn’t CYDY strike a revenue sharing deal with Bruce? Based on what I heard last night, Incelldx’s test kits are going to make a killing and CYDY investors will be forced to watch from the sidelines or does Nader and Co. have something more obtuse in mind? Like, challenge his patent... whoa.
Which choice will Nader and Co. make?
1) Ignore Bruce and give up diagnostics revenue
2) Challenge patent and directly compete
3) Partner
4) Merge/acquire
Isn’t it funny how junior executives can’t see two moves ahead? I would like them to explain to investors why they don’t see diagnostics for this platform drug as important if they chose option 1, the apparent course we are on.
If they make choice 2 and challenge his patent, I’m definitely selling. Bruce mentioned several “other MABs that are very exciting” so that means we could lose Bruce to the next smart pharmaceutical that would treat him right. I invested in Bruce, and many of you did too, so if that is the plan, we all have to consider the implications.
Regardless, it is clear, Bruce will gladly switch teams if he finds a drug that is better for humanity and that is a complement to Bruce and a direct result of Nader and Co. Not choosing options 3 or 4.
Furthermore, remember that comment Nader said about “we don’t need research” well, that is another astonishing statement made by our illustrious CEO that illustrates the shortsightedness of this executive team.
I wonder if the increased market cap that Bruce might bring be worth avoiding the “lose or lose more” scenarios presented in options 1 and 2 that Nader and Co seem hellbent to make.
I do.
Let’s hope Nader’s stubborn leadership style doesn’t end in the mantra
“Fire Nader. Save CytoDyn.”
From one former CEO to another - stop self-inflicting injury.
OU (edited)
OU2G
Comments188 | + Follow
Dr. Patterson nails it again and has put fear into those shorting this company. I have no doubt the share price will be going up on Monday because he infused confidence into the blackhole of certainty Nader creates.
It is time CYDY admit that Bruce is a ringer for representing the Covid 19 indications for Leronlimab. Bruce CREATED the science and IS the best most credible spokesperson for CYDY on CV19 and Cancer - period. Dr. Jay is nice, Dr. Yang is helpful however Dr. Patterson is the most important to shareholders... not just for PR.
Ask yourself, where would the share price be if Bruce was welcomed to collaborate with CYDY vs. being pushed away by Nader and Kelly. Could we have held around $8, 20% off the high pre June 30th short attack during these volatile OTC days?
Why didn’t CYDY strike a revenue sharing deal with Bruce? Based on what I heard last night, Incelldx’s test kits are going to make a killing and CYDY investors will be forced to watch from the sidelines or does Nader and Co. have something more obtuse in mind? Like, challenge his patent... whoa.
Which choice will Nader and Co. make?
1) Ignore Bruce and give up diagnostics revenue
2) Challenge patent and directly compete
3) Partner
4) Merge/acquire
Isn’t it funny how junior executives can’t see two moves ahead? I would like them to explain to investors why they don’t see diagnostics for this platform drug as important if they chose option 1, the apparent course we are on.
If they make choice 2 and challenge his patent, I’m definitely selling. Bruce mentioned several “other MABs that are very exciting” so that means we could lose Bruce to the next smart pharmaceutical that would treat him right. I invested in Bruce, and many of you did too, so if that is the plan, we all have to consider the implications.
Regardless, it is clear, Bruce will gladly switch teams if he finds a drug that is better for humanity and that is a complement to Bruce and a direct result of Nader and Co. Not choosing options 3 or 4.
Furthermore, remember that comment Nader said about “we don’t need research” well, that is another astonishing statement made by our illustrious CEO that illustrates the shortsightedness of this executive team.
I wonder if the increased market cap that Bruce might bring be worth avoiding the “lose or lose more” scenarios presented in options 1 and 2 that Nader and Co seem hellbent to make.
I do.
Let’s hope Nader’s stubborn leadership style doesn’t end in the mantra
“Fire Nader. Save CytoDyn.”
From one former CEO to another - stop self-inflicting injury.
OU (edited)
2
2
