I don't want to add fuel to the fire. My position has been always clear (and no, I am not a short 
):
https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=597...z6gEHC2Zlg
Now: few hours ago Dr. Patterson was asked:
This is precisely why he is critical : a badly designed trial without proper support and knowledge will lead to better than expected results. A good one to approval.
Please remember what happened with our M/M trial. We would be selling Vyrologix as we speak if we had designed this trial better (I am not blaming anybody as little was known then).
The critical word is KNOW . Please tell me: Who knows better than BP about Long Haulers, possible trial design ??? measurements ??? timing of reactions, check points ??? possible outcomes ??? shortcomings ??? combinations ??? End-points ????
His knowledge is worth Billions (yes with B ). So, with all due respect, this is not a short attack, the mail might be exaggerated or whatever, but the content remains valid imo.
Bruce Patterson would add a huge amount of value to our SP and to the COVID/CANCER/HIV sufferers all over. He has the knowledge, we have the drug.
And no, this is not an attack on NP. I have been a staunch supporter of him in spite of his obvious shortcomings (we all have them).
He just made a big mistake in the case of Bruce Patterson. I am not privy as of what happened. I don't think there is a case of dishonestly (on either side) but rather a case of money or personalities.
I believe there should be reconsiderations on both sides as both will/would greatly benefit from a synergistic approach.
We have a long road ahead and having such a scientist on-board would be definitely a big plus as we still need to do lots of research and don't have in-house capabilities. Saying that we need only drug commercialization capabilities in such a complex world is just wrong-headed.
): https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=597...z6gEHC2Zlg
Quote:Agreed, I have been following BP (the doctor) studies, publications & experiments and consider not having him working actively with us one of the main missteps of NP .
His research and voice would leverage Vyrologix and CYDY standing in the scientific community many times.
Hope in the future some bridges can still be build .
Now: few hours ago Dr. Patterson was asked:
This is precisely why he is critical : a badly designed trial without proper support and knowledge will lead to better than expected results. A good one to approval.
Please remember what happened with our M/M trial. We would be selling Vyrologix as we speak if we had designed this trial better (I am not blaming anybody as little was known then).
The critical word is KNOW . Please tell me: Who knows better than BP about Long Haulers, possible trial design ??? measurements ??? timing of reactions, check points ??? possible outcomes ??? shortcomings ??? combinations ??? End-points ????
His knowledge is worth Billions (yes with B ). So, with all due respect, this is not a short attack, the mail might be exaggerated or whatever, but the content remains valid imo.
Bruce Patterson would add a huge amount of value to our SP and to the COVID/CANCER/HIV sufferers all over. He has the knowledge, we have the drug.
And no, this is not an attack on NP. I have been a staunch supporter of him in spite of his obvious shortcomings (we all have them).
He just made a big mistake in the case of Bruce Patterson. I am not privy as of what happened. I don't think there is a case of dishonestly (on either side) but rather a case of money or personalities.
I believe there should be reconsiderations on both sides as both will/would greatly benefit from a synergistic approach.
We have a long road ahead and having such a scientist on-board would be definitely a big plus as we still need to do lots of research and don't have in-house capabilities. Saying that we need only drug commercialization capabilities in such a complex world is just wrong-headed.
15
1
