The company doesn't take directly shareholders' mo

The company doesn't take directly shareholders' money but take away part of shareholders' ownership... that they obtained with money. Of course, this is not necessarily a negative thing but it is hard to argue that GNBT didn't destroy shareholder value in the past after a 1/1000 reverse split, use of proceeds leading to no significant results due to bad decisions, without mentioning the fact to sell shares at a supposed undervalued price including important fees.
In any case, the company would not survive without shareholders.

I don't criticize the current dilution and hope that GNBT is at an inflection point. I just agree with Hylander that shareholders deserve respect, even if the company doesn't take directly their money.

Concerning the BOD, if shareholders don't feel like their interests are well managed, they have benefits in nominating people.

"Shareholder advocates look for the following characteristics in a board:

-No more of the old-boy network where old boards essentially control who replaces them through nominations.
-New corporate boards that are actually shareholders who want to help shape the company's direction.
-The arrival of the representation by those outside of an Ivory Tower.
-The eventual composition of a board that has no interest in just voting with management because they are influenced in some way.
-The elimination of the "professional board members" who sit on multiple boards.
-Higher turnover at the board level as shareholders nominate and vote in their choices.
-Potentially higher levels of transparency and ultimately accountability."