i should be asking and not saying - maybe it should have been in the form of a question, because i dont know.
so...no, to not turn things around, but save the IP even if it was for themselves, (and not hand it over on a platter to BP) and in the end get the drug on the market... but it did seem like the ship was sinking at the time. is it safe to say that cytodyn came dangerously close to liquidation? i think its safe to say that patterson and later 13D/pestell said - "hey wait a minute" and werent going to let such an important and valuable asset vanish and they did what any rational professionals would be expected to do. and im pretty sure that the group was not about to sit on their hands and wait for nader to do something brilliant.
just curious as to what other smart people would have done in their shoes. i do not have that level of intelligence. but in that situation, usually the stockholders are not the first concern, the IP is.
but we are not sinking anymore, we are within an inch of truly open water, and im getting excited again like when i saw pattersons' tedx talk for the first time and covid patients were "magically" getting of off ventilators . now 5 therapy resistant cancer patients given leronlimab are "magically" alive after 3 years, 4 of which have no signs of disease, the 5th stabilized with no progression. technically and previously impossible. it still amazes me that the data being released over this entire time hasnt triggered at least one generous buyout offer. havent other companies been acquired on far less data? still, i dont want cytodyn to be acquired - ever - , that would be capitulation. most of us are here because this "too good to be true" story is actually true. the science so far has said so. science wins. at least it should. science + solid leadership wins. im counting on it.
so...no, to not turn things around, but save the IP even if it was for themselves, (and not hand it over on a platter to BP) and in the end get the drug on the market... but it did seem like the ship was sinking at the time. is it safe to say that cytodyn came dangerously close to liquidation? i think its safe to say that patterson and later 13D/pestell said - "hey wait a minute" and werent going to let such an important and valuable asset vanish and they did what any rational professionals would be expected to do. and im pretty sure that the group was not about to sit on their hands and wait for nader to do something brilliant.
just curious as to what other smart people would have done in their shoes. i do not have that level of intelligence. but in that situation, usually the stockholders are not the first concern, the IP is.
but we are not sinking anymore, we are within an inch of truly open water, and im getting excited again like when i saw pattersons' tedx talk for the first time and covid patients were "magically" getting of off ventilators . now 5 therapy resistant cancer patients given leronlimab are "magically" alive after 3 years, 4 of which have no signs of disease, the 5th stabilized with no progression. technically and previously impossible. it still amazes me that the data being released over this entire time hasnt triggered at least one generous buyout offer. havent other companies been acquired on far less data? still, i dont want cytodyn to be acquired - ever - , that would be capitulation. most of us are here because this "too good to be true" story is actually true. the science so far has said so. science wins. at least it should. science + solid leadership wins. im counting on it.
Quote:Quote: i said - what good would the patent be if the company is bankrupt and the next phantom party would have to acquire it somehow at some cost in a bankruptcy liquidation hearing
Quote:So you're saying that Patterson trying to force Cytodyn to buy his company at an extremely inflated price to take control of his "patent" was meant to turn things around? Back then I dug through the financial numbers for IncellDX and they were making next to nothing and I posted about it.
11
