While "it's GNBT's history" is a theory, to me, it

While "it's GNBT's history" is a theory, to me, it just doesn't hold water. First, Joe is now in control, not MF or AG. New management usually isn't held to account for old management's errors. In fact, new management is usually viewed as a positive for a moribund stock, particularly if they appear to be getting things done. See next couple of points.

Second, Joe has cleaned up a lot of the corporate structure that he said he would - including issuing dividends to existing shareholders. Sometimes a bit slower than he or we wanted, but so far, he has done what he said he would within the restrictions that he has faced with what he now leads.

Third, he's obviously advanced the Excellegan/MSO aspect of the company - yes, he doesn't have a lot of revenues yet, but the covid thing put a delay on virtually every health care company not covid related. Did you ever think hospitals would go bankrupt, or HC pros get laid off because they were in the cancer or heart condition aspect of health? He's got major agreements with the VA, and clinics in AZ. Again, maybe slower than we'd like, but certainly visible progress.

Fourth, he has "indicated" that they have info that the peptide approach works (from previous flu work as well as what has not been shared with the public) - this is partially confirmed by the deals he has done with the Chinese and the Malayians. I truly don't believe either would enter into an agreement with GNBT/NGIO if there wasn't some hard data that Joe can share under confidentiality agreements - but can't be made public yet.

Fifth, those deals - the lovey Ms Gluskin and the vacuous Mr Fletcher never advanced GNBT to anything close. And AG had multiple hundreds of millions to do that, whereas Joe is working on a shoestring budget - and so far, he has made that work.

Sixth, NGIO is in the process of being approved for listing on the NAS - even a dumba$$ like me can do the math with a simple valuation of GNBT based on their ownership of a listed NGIO - and it is certainly greater than $.21. And do you think the advisory board would have been formed with the quality of people if this was the "old GNBT" and there was nothing but a Zonk behind door No. 1? (Old guys will get that reference, new guys, maybe not! lol)

So for all those reasons, I respectfully disagree with the construct that the price is being held down by GNBT's history. The market has always traded on potential, of which GNBT has literally 1000% or more (anybody here think this should ONLY be $2.31?). And if the price is up, there is a LOT more potential to make money shorting/going long than if it is trading at $.21 (What, I can only make $.21 if I short it to 0? I'll find somewhere else to play!).

So it's something else, and grabbing my tinfoil hat, I truly believe there is a conspiracy to keep it low right now. Why? No FRIGGIN' clue, other than it will play out when it plays out. But I do not subscribe to the theory that "it's GNBT's history" that is holding back speculators. That's why they speculate - because moving the price up and down can make them money. But not a penny here or there (unless we were seeing 15 to 20 million shares a day in volume).

JMO. I've been in since 2006, so take my opinion with a salt lick of salt.