I personally think it was a big mistake not to buy

I personally think it was a big mistake not to buy IncellDx. Dr. Patterson is a good scientist and good at developing new products(kits). He would have made us billions of dollars for hist tests. (paid for the BO itself)

Now, Bruce has used CytoDyn data to understand the issue and create kits, and once Bruce's kit are approved, as opposed to selling them, they have get a mediator or go for a trial on why the he built a kit with the data, for which he was paid for his consultation.

At the end we are going to own some of his sales, but at a costs of months or year of mediation or fight.

Even now, it is easier to buy his company, and work out for a number of years, for a cost, and sure he can make us get to the market faster, get new indications, and supplementary kits.

Again, I'm not the BOD of CytoDyn, but I hope someone read this, and think it might be a win-win for both corps.

Quote:

---

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)

Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/newpost/605...z6TvED9mnQ

---