Okay, I listened to that ragtag group of 13Ds on t

Okay, I listened to that ragtag group of 13Ds on their Labor Day webinar.
Not impressed. But, keep in mind, what I express here is my own opinions under the 1st Amendment and is not intended to constitute a summary of what they said:
First, Dr. Patterson appeared to have arrived late. Not a good look.
All of them were dressed unprofessional, notwithstanding it was Labor Day. They were trying to impress us that they can run a public company and have professional meetings with the FDA. They did not impress me in this regard. Dr. Patterson, however, was not wearing his trademark lab coat. He must have heard all of your requests to ditch the coat.
Next, all of their video backgrounds (i.e., the scenes behind them) were unprofessional, except for one of them. Further, Beaty's background with all of the guitars made it look like a college dorm room. And, one of them (Dr. Staats) was doing it was driving his car, what he wants to take over a public company and can't sit in one location during a webinar on Labor Day for a mere hour and a half?
Next, Dr. Patterson acted like he was now a lawyer with the way he attempted to talk about patents. His closing argument on the issue did not impress me.
CytoDyn's lawyers are probably saying, "Thank you Dr. Patterson for the free deposition."
Was it really proper for Dr. Patterson to disclose on a chart CytoDyn's data?
And, why did I get the impression, notwithstanding the lack of the lab coat and the lack of the IncellDX signage, that this was a big promotional video for his company IncellDX? Sounds like his company IncellDX plans to runs the CytoDyn Longhaulers clinical trial should they take over the company.
As to the questions, while I was impressed that they did attempt to take on some of the hard hitting questions, their answers IMHO were all strike outs:
One questioner asked them why they appear to be aligned with the short basher website Buyer's Strike trying to destroy the company, but I found their answer that they were not aligned with them underwhelming.
Later they proceeded to insult two of the questioners (presumably shareholders, so not a smart move), when asked questions, one of which was about how they intended to deal with Dr. Patterson's potential conflicts of interest with IncellDX:
One shareholder asking questions was called "naive."
Another shareholder asking questions was told that his opinions were "not informed opinions."
IMHO, arrogant is a term that describes how these wanabees treated these two questioning shareholders.
All of this is in my humble opinion.