Although discussion on the board regarding the 5 missing leaders from the Leadership Team has waned, I find this development even more perplexing now than I did last Wednesday. It was then, after the bios were removed the previous night, that Ken inquired of CYDY and was informed that the removal was: "Nothing notable ... just a reformatting of our website." 3 days of trading then ensued with no reformatting or explanation of the status of the 5 missing leaders, an omission that CYDY could not have expected to bolster a sp already under pressure.
In the middle of CLOVER, CYDY's most important clinical trial since CD-12, it seems inconceivable that CYDY would willingly dispense with the services of Bernie and Joseph, whose duties directly involve the operation of CLOVER. Moreover, Dr Pestill is critical to all of CYDY's cancer efforts. So logic suggests that this must be just a simple "reformatting" of the website. But even if a struggling biotech were to decide to spend money tinkering with its website in the middle of a vital clinical trial, why would it remove the bios of 5 very critical officers/employees without the reformatted website being a finished product, ready to install immediately? This seems like website management 101.
Nevertheless, it's very possible, perhaps even likely, that, notwithstanding the unforced error of CYDY providing a 3 day opportunity to Leronlimab naysayers for sp affected mischief, the tempest in a teapot that I have brewed up above will be easily calmed Monday morning with the publication of a reformatted website proudly depicting the 5 missing leaders in a slightly altered manner, just as CYDY informed Ken. If so, fine. But I can also fathom things playing out very differently on Monday or Tuesday morning.
By now, surely you realize that, once again, I am about to engage in blatant speculation, unsupported by material facts, of the tea leaf, bread crumb, and connect the dots variety. So, by all means, return to the main board if this is not your cup to tea.
So here is my best effort to submit an alternative scenario to the simple, nothing to see here explanation CYDY offered to Ken. What if CYDY management, i.e., our 3 remaining Leaders, has been meeting periodically with 2 or more potential BP partners since the days leading up to the start of CLOVER in late 2025? What if more than 8 months of such periodic discussions with potential partners have each generated agreed upon outlines of what level of unassailable Recist data would support what level of financial terms for a partnership agreement? What if the last enrolled CLOVER patients, enrolled by April 21 (per CYDY PR), took their first post enrollment Recist by June 16 (56 days after April 21)? What if the Creatv and Natera blood tests together with the multiple Recist tumor shrinkage findings for the initial 40 to 50 patients had already created a reliable predictive pattern of how the 1st Resist findings re tumor shrinkage were likely to evolve subsequently to the degree that a potential partner might feel confident enough with only 1 Resist for the last enrolled patients to leapfrog its rival(s) and pull the trigger on an offer compatible with the previously agreed upon partnership terms outline?
If some version of elements I have set forth above were in play during the partnership meetings Mr Hoffman told us would be occurring at a San Diego biotech conference June 22-24, that would support an hypothesis that a partnership agreement could have been reached there and will be announced soon. Removing the missing 5 from CYDY's website would support this hypothesis -- assuming the partner is taking over CYDY operations as quickly as possible, including CLOVER, as well as the services of the missing 5.
Clearly, the above hypothesis is not investment advice, and I have all together too much time on my hands. Nonetheless, hoping for good news on Monday or Tuesday.
In the middle of CLOVER, CYDY's most important clinical trial since CD-12, it seems inconceivable that CYDY would willingly dispense with the services of Bernie and Joseph, whose duties directly involve the operation of CLOVER. Moreover, Dr Pestill is critical to all of CYDY's cancer efforts. So logic suggests that this must be just a simple "reformatting" of the website. But even if a struggling biotech were to decide to spend money tinkering with its website in the middle of a vital clinical trial, why would it remove the bios of 5 very critical officers/employees without the reformatted website being a finished product, ready to install immediately? This seems like website management 101.
Nevertheless, it's very possible, perhaps even likely, that, notwithstanding the unforced error of CYDY providing a 3 day opportunity to Leronlimab naysayers for sp affected mischief, the tempest in a teapot that I have brewed up above will be easily calmed Monday morning with the publication of a reformatted website proudly depicting the 5 missing leaders in a slightly altered manner, just as CYDY informed Ken. If so, fine. But I can also fathom things playing out very differently on Monday or Tuesday morning.
By now, surely you realize that, once again, I am about to engage in blatant speculation, unsupported by material facts, of the tea leaf, bread crumb, and connect the dots variety. So, by all means, return to the main board if this is not your cup to tea.
So here is my best effort to submit an alternative scenario to the simple, nothing to see here explanation CYDY offered to Ken. What if CYDY management, i.e., our 3 remaining Leaders, has been meeting periodically with 2 or more potential BP partners since the days leading up to the start of CLOVER in late 2025? What if more than 8 months of such periodic discussions with potential partners have each generated agreed upon outlines of what level of unassailable Recist data would support what level of financial terms for a partnership agreement? What if the last enrolled CLOVER patients, enrolled by April 21 (per CYDY PR), took their first post enrollment Recist by June 16 (56 days after April 21)? What if the Creatv and Natera blood tests together with the multiple Recist tumor shrinkage findings for the initial 40 to 50 patients had already created a reliable predictive pattern of how the 1st Resist findings re tumor shrinkage were likely to evolve subsequently to the degree that a potential partner might feel confident enough with only 1 Resist for the last enrolled patients to leapfrog its rival(s) and pull the trigger on an offer compatible with the previously agreed upon partnership terms outline?
If some version of elements I have set forth above were in play during the partnership meetings Mr Hoffman told us would be occurring at a San Diego biotech conference June 22-24, that would support an hypothesis that a partnership agreement could have been reached there and will be announced soon. Removing the missing 5 from CYDY's website would support this hypothesis -- assuming the partner is taking over CYDY operations as quickly as possible, including CLOVER, as well as the services of the missing 5.
Clearly, the above hypothesis is not investment advice, and I have all together too much time on my hands. Nonetheless, hoping for good news on Monday or Tuesday.
22
