Goose...there is POTENTIALLY some faulty logic in

Goose...there is POTENTIALLY some faulty logic in your assessment of stock ownership of the board of directors for a biotech and you are not considering all things that we would need to know in order to make a fair comparison.

1. Of the biotechs whose BOD owns 10-15%, what kind of success have they had in making money for the company and raising the share price?

2. Of those biotechs, were the BOD members taking exorbitantly high salaries as well as stock, or were they paid a fair salary and the rest in stock so that they would share in the success of the company if/when it happens?

3. Of those biotechs, did any of the other BOD's have their shares clawed back by a court of law for unjust enrichment?

4. Of those biotechs, did any of the BOD members buy shares to increase their ownership position?

Those are just a few questions one could ask. Just because another board got 10-15% doesn't mean they actually earned it or deserved it. Perhaps another reason our BOD doesn't own so much stock is that they pocket their salaries and don't invest in CYDY as we do. And don't tell me about "quiet periods" where they cannot buy, the only quiet period CYDY is in perpetually is the quiet from hitting timelines and endpoints.

Facts are facts, and I hope the facts change soon, just as we all do.