I didn't complain about anything, I just said I disagreed with someone's interpretation of something and also, can you point to any evidence that shows the FDA already saw specifically the Day 14 data that Cytodyn itself just found in the data? The FDA doesn't mine the data, it's on the company to pull these things out and show them.

Cytodyn may very well get turned down for an EUA based on the update that they're sending regarding this latest press release but that doesn't change the fact that it was statistically significant in the critical population. I understand that wasn't the endpoint they were aiming for but if it's statistically significant then it means they can set up another trial with that as their end point and they are guaranteed to hit it (if they don't hit it then it wasn't actually statistically significant). That should mean that approval will be coming at some point if management doesn't screw it up...which is also entirely possible.

I may be wrong but I think this is the wrong way to look at it. They looked at 100% of the critical cases without any type of adjustment for age or anything and showed 82% reduction in death with statistical significance. Hitting statistical significance means that it wasn't a random event so if the entire trial had been made up of only critical patients then it wouldn't have mattered if there were 62 or 300, there still would be a benefit at day 14.

I think it's very appropriate to look at severe and critical patients separately for benefits (or detriments) like these. It would be crazy for the FDA to say "no, we can't give this patient in critical condition a drug that works for critical patients because it didn't show any benefit or detriment to the severe or moderate patients."

Gilead's market cap is actually only about 3.3 times revenue but even if that were the case, if Cytodyn was making $5B in revenue that would put the market cap at $16.5B and a share price over $25 so $10B in revenue would put it at about $50 share price.

If the company went to a $5B market cap the share price would be about $8.35 if it went to $10B market cap the share price would be $16.70 based on the number of outstanding shares on 12/31/20.

So just to be clear...you're admitting that based on the FDA letter that you provided, there are conditions, which can change, that allow for EUAs to operate on a limited scale and not a wide scale and that doctors who were part of the testing of Remdesivir at Vandy also referred to it as a Conditional Emergency Use Authorization but because there isn't a check box, that means it doesn't exist?

If you go listen again, Nader never says they filed for a Conditional EUA. He just said he hopes that they get one while continuing to gather data...which is what Redesivir received in May of 2020 and then it was expanded in August after more testing was done.

For starters, I was just commenting on the fact that yes, the term Conditional Emergency Use Authorization is used elsewhere in the internet and it was actually on Vanderbilt University Medical Center's website whom I trust far more than the people on a message board who can't even google the term to find it and then say it must not exist because they can't find it. Also of note, Vandy was one of the teams doing research on Remdesivir so I trust even more that they noted the May EUA as conditional and you'll see why below.

Moving on, it's interesting and disingenuous that you cut the letter off where you did because in the very next paragraphs it goes on to say:

On August 28, 2020, having concluded that revising this EUA was appropriate to protect the public health or safety under Section 564(g)(2) of the Act, FDA reissued the May 1, 2020, letter in its entirety with revisions incorporated to expand the authorized use of Veklury by no longer limiting its use to the treatment of patients with severe disease. In addition, the Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers was revised to provide updated clinical trial results and supporting data.

On October 1, 2020, having concluded that revising this EUA was appropriate to protect the public health or safety under Section 564(g)(2) of the Act, FDA reissued the August 28, 2020, letter in its entirety with revisions incorporated to the scope and conditions of authorization designating Gilead Sciences, Inc. and its authorized distributors5 as the responsible parties for the distribution of Velkury. On October 16, 2020, FDA reissued the October 1, 2020, letter in its entirety with revisions to clarify that an alternate care site (ACS) meeting certain criteria was considered an “inpatient hospital setting” for the purposes of the scope of the EUA, and as such, was within the terms and conditions of FDA’s authorization.

So whoever says you've got EUA or you don't is wrong. Remdesivir's EUA was modified/expanded from May to August. You can't modify it if it's a binary event (approved or not) and if you can modify it then it's not as clear cut as "got it or don't".

That may be true if you google "conditional EUA" but if you google "Conditional Emergency Use Authorization" the first link is to Vanderbilt University Medical Center with an article about Remdesivir and the following quote:

The FDA announced last week that it had approved remdesivir for use in adult and pediatric COVID-19 patients 12 years of age and older who require hospitalization, after conditional emergency use authorization was given in May.

https://news.vumc.org/2020/10/26/covid-treatment-studied-by-vumc-gains-fda-approval/

Let's say I agree. The one thing your math doesn't address at all is the only thing a company/shareholder should care about and that is profitability. You have no idea how much it costs them to produce your stated 1 gram of hydrogen per day. If they can produce it for less than what they can sell it for then guess what that company becomes? Profitable. Since you have 0 clue how much they are producing the system for you can't possibly know if it is profitable to make or not. If it's profitable, then you obviously scale up like any other solar farm in the world.

The only ones that should have Hypersolar listed on their Linked-In profiles are Tim Young and Joun Lee as they are the only ones that hold positions at the company. Kinda funny that those are the only two with Hypersolar on their Linked-In profiles huh? The rest of them are employees of the universities and should have those listed on their Linked-In profiles assuming they keep them up to date.

Do you understand what research agreements with universities mean? It means that the PhDs listed are employees of the university, not of Hypersolar, and they are assisting in the research for Hypersolar. Only Joun Lee is an employee of Hypersolar. Way to go though ignoring the fact that almost all of them have been heard from and mentioned alongside hypersolar since 2012 though which completely proved you wrong for saying they were never heard from again. Really good deflection.

Well, Stickney was added in 2016 so...wrong. http://www.hypersolar.com/news_detail.php?id=83

Joun Lee was hired as CTO in 2016 so...wrong again.
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/hypersolar-hires-full-time-chief-technology-officer-otcqb-hysr-2123052.htm

Syed Mubeen was still working there in 2017...wow, you're wrong again.
http://www.hypersolar.com/news_detail.php?id=89

Eric McFarland and Nirla Singh were listed on the patent filed in 2017.
http://www.4-traders.com/HYPERSOLAR-INC-11095839/news/HyperSolar-Patent-Issued-for-Methods-for-Manufacturing-Photoelectrosynthetically-Active-Heterostru-26333517/

And Wei Cheng was added in 2015. So much for no one being heard from since 2012.
http://www.hypersolar.com/news_detail.php?id=67

Four of them are still working on it currently for sure. I don't know if Vikram Pattarkine or Nirala Singh still are or not. McFarland left in 2014 to the University of Queensland for a year but then came back to UCSB so I'm not sure if he's working with HYSR anymore or not. Maybe I'll email him and ask his thoughts on it. I'll post his reply if he responds.

http://www.hypersolar.com/team.php

These are 6 that have worked or are still working on it that I was referring to. This list also leaves off Eric McFarland (sp?). If they aren't working on it now that doesn't necessarily mean it's because they stopped believing in the tech and you'd need to prove that's why they left to make your point. I know that a least half or more on this list are still working with Hypersolar though.

I'm going with 6 PhDs that are employed by universities that have decided that it is worth their time to bring this technology to fruition. You claim you have a PhD and yet you choose to sit on a message board everyday and basically say that these other 6 professors are stupid because what they're working on is impossible. I can look up their credentials and verify that they are who Hypersolar says they are. Again, you're just a guy on a message board. Here look, I've got 3 PhDs. Prove me wrong. They have 6 people that have doctorate degrees in different aspects of the project all working together because they disagree with you about it being impossible. You somehow know every aspect of this technology whereas their team needs 6 PhDs. You're a superhero bro. Smarter than 6 people that have committed their lives to researching different aspects of this tech. The level of arrogance you have is incredible.

Right, so somehow you've shown the math that it isn't possible without knowing any of the details that you claim they haven't published. How are you doing math with numbers that haven't been published? You're making up what you assume their efficiency is, what you assume their costs are, etc. I've brought this up before. Until they tell us the numbers they're working with it's all a guess so you haven't proven anything. Can you tell me how much hydrogen they are currently producing and how much it costs? If not then you're proving nothing. You're making assumptions, which may be good assumptions or may be crap assumptions but they aren't fact and you pass them off as if you're the greatest chemist that's ever lived and you're not to be questioned.

No, I believe that the University of Iowa and UCSB have done there diligence in employing people with PhDs that have dedicated their time and energy into this idea (as have many other PhDs at other universities) over a guy on a message board. Pretty simple.

I never said Tim Young knows anything about the technical side. I know he's a business man. He built up Rovion and sold it. That's what I want him to do here. There are 6 PhDs working on the technical side so I think they're covered. You said you worked in engineering or something? No PhD? Against 6 that are making progress toward doing something you claim is impossible? Yea, I'll go with the 6 PhDs.

I'm not a big fan of the dilution, I completely agree on that. The links they post at least relate to hydrogen production, albeit not really HYSR directly but the links do have factual information. You just saying scam and that they have nothing that works is strictly opinion on the former and objectively wrong on the latter. It clearly works and produces hydrogen. At what rate and cost...we have no idea yet but it does generate hydrogen. As I've said before, you need efficiency and longevity for a viable product. They're currently increasing the amount of time that the thing runs for. They're up from 100 hours to 365 hours in 2 months. We don't know the efficiency rate yet but there's no reason they need to work on one of those aspects before the other so long as they achieve the goal on both eventually. The progress definitely hasn't been fast but it has laid out goals and met them repeatedly. I do wish they'd have laid out every single thing that needed to be done from the beginning to achieve commercial viability but that list seems like it would have been so long that people wouldn't have run away thinking there's no way they'd achieve all of that. They've clearly pieced the whole thing together now though and they're working on fine tuning the amount of hydrogen they can produce for a reasonable cost. I don't see anything that screams scam about that because that's how literally every product is developed.

No, when I said "any medication" I meant that ANY MEDICATION. None were created in a marketable or FDA approved form on the first try or in one day. Over the counter stuff included. It's called research and development for a reason. You're going all Alex Jones because it doesn't work right now but you can't deny the progress. Again, any facts? No? Just opinion? That's fine but isn't really fair to people coming here looking for genuine information.

You've never taken an antibiotic or asprin or tylenol in your life? Dude, you're full of it. Just like all of your posts.

Mic drop on an opinion? Really? Your credibility is higher than Tim Young's? I've seen his resume and haven't seen yours so I'm not sure why you think that and also Tim isn't involved in any other company that you think is a "sister company". You're out here screaming conspiracy theories about all of these companies being the same because of some flow chart. You sound like Alex Jones. Yes, I'm sorry that I believe the people with PhDs that continue to work on this tech from two different universities over someone named RSH on a message board with 0 PhDs. Sorry if that sounds crazy.

So you think there was 0 progression in efficiency/output/design from the baggy to the "small panel with few bubbles"? Do you think they lied about the amount of voltage they were generating as they increased that over the years? Clearly it works longer than it did even a month ago. Undeniably they have made progress and you have 0 facts to show that they won't continue to do so. Again, I get it, you clearly have something against this company personally because you don't have any facts backing up your claims. Guess what, every type of medication you have ever taken, didn't work at first. Trial and error is how you come up with something that works and is a viable product. Please just give me some facts showing that they aren't making progress because everything I read says otherwise.

So wait, "it doesn't matter how many hours it works" so you're admitting that it does work now? And of course it matters how long something works. I brought up the baggy to show the progression to the "small panel with few bubbles". You're clearly admitting progression now by conceding that it was a baggy and now it's a "small panel with few bubbles". Do you have any evidence to convince people that they won't continue to progress as they have been? You clearly have some vendetta against this company because two posts ago you said it doesn't work and now you're admitting that not only does it work but it's progressed from a baggy to something better. I don't care if you have something personal against the company but saying something doesn't work when that is clearly not the case takes your credibility to zero. Why would anyone believe you when you call the company a scam day after day when you blatantly lie about something clearly false like the fact that it works and produces hydrogen.

You also have zero facts or figures as to the efficiency or cost of the hydrogen being produced but you just "feel" like it isn't something viable. What if they came out tomorrow and said it only cost them $0.03 per hour of operation to produce the hydrogen? 365 hours of those "little bubbles" accumulating would actually end up being a decent amount of hydrogen for only $10. Maybe they come out and say it's $2.00 per hour and it's not viable and then I'd agree with you but as of now you're making claims with 0 fact. That isn't helping people that are new to the board and looking for actual information.

I'm a little confused what you mean by doesn't work. The press release clearly states that it does work for over 365 hours under peak sunlight conditions and that they're working to increase that to 1,000 hours. I mean, do you just think they are lying outright about everything? They've clearly shown videos of progress. At one point it was a baggy that you talked crap about, then it was a full out prototype that you continued to talk crap about. Now they're saying it works for 365 hours in peak conditions and you're saying it doesn't work. Not sure what you want to see from them other than for them to close up shop but they clearly have made progress.

That you won't report and make money on. Sorry if your "evidence" seems a little lacking. One flow chart probably won't do it for the SEC either. Do you have evidence that the scientists at the universities are not working on the goals that they say they are working on? No. Do you have evidence that it is completely impossible to make what they say they are trying to make? No. Just a flow chart of people who have invested in other start ups. LOL

You must have missed my post where I said I made around a 650% return. That is what I'd call a gem. I'm playing with house money now and if it takes off it takes off and I'll make a lot more. If it doesn't and goes to $0.00 I'll still walk with more than my initial investment. Guess it's a different perspective when you're on the winning side of the coin.

You can get a huge reward for being a whistle blower to the SEC. Like I've seen rewards as big as $17M. You're telling me that's not worth it to you, you'd rather sit here and be entertained? Your credibility just went out the window.

Please point to a post where I've ever said they were about to crack anything. You can't, because I haven't, ever. I'm still curious and asking for the third time that if you're so sure of this being a scam, why haven't you reported them to the SEC? You spend time on this board everyday to inform and drive people away from this stock so why not report them so you don't have to spend all your time here anymore?

Why haven't you reported them to the SEC for being a scam? HYSR does have working tech. They are currently working to make it last long enough and be efficient enough to sell. Make no mistake though, according to their last PR, it worked for over 296 hours. Unless those are all just lies too in your conspiracy theory.

I agree that those people not being fired doesn't mean it isn't a scam but it is better evidence than a flow chart that came from God knows where and your opinion. They're tricking the SEC and two universities but YOU got them? You must be the best detective of all time. Well done.

That guy was a complete hack. I've had to post definitions of words for that guy because he just spouts crap to try and sound smart. I've seen that chart you posted before too. I can give you a flow chart showing who all the members of the Illuminati are too but it's not relevant to anything. The investors aren't the people working on the tech. The people working on the tech work for UCSB and the University of Iowa. Pretty sure if these guys were trying to work on something that isn't possible the heads of their departments would have fired their asses long ago. Also pretty sure they wouldn't keep renewing contracts with a company that is a scam especially if they are linked to other proven scam companies. Why do you think they haven't fired anyone or stopped renewing contracts? Hmm...but YOU were the guy that cracked the case from your mom's basement I'm sure. Why is it that you haven't contacted the SEC to inform them of your big discovery? Probably because they'd laugh at you.

Impossible? There's a lot of companies working on something similar to this which I have to believe have a much better science background than you do that don't think it's impossible. Saying something is impossible is easy when you don't provide any scientific evidence to refute the work that many people are dedicating their lives to. You are a conspiracy theorist through and through. Of course companies have to stay positive that they'll be able to achieve their goals. Businesses close everyday but it doesn't mean they're a scam or that they aren't trying. Maybe they don't achieve commercial viability but that doesn't mean they're a scam. Do you really think the scientists at UCSB and Iowa are in on this so called scam? They clearly believe the tech isn't impossible.

The CEO is clearly not getting rich making $250k in Santa Barbara was my point. If that was the point, why didn't they start this "scam" in a low cost city were $250k did make you rich? Your conspiracy theory just doesn't add up or the people doing it are just incredibly stupid. Tim Young has a solid resume of previous employment and you're asserting that he left it behind for a life of crime. Pretty big accusation man. Also, they report to the SEC quarterly and have been interviewed by multiple publications but you're the one that cracked the case without ever having visited or spoken to Tim Young? Seems legit.

I'd be guessing at the wireless term but it would make sense that some systems use electricity when the sun isn't out to continue hydrogen production or to increase the voltage to split it more efficiently. I'm not totally sure what that was alluding to though.

I agree with the rest of your post about how much is produced being a key metric. Amount of time it lasts is a big one too though. If it produces enough for one car in an hour but only runs for 10 minutes then you're just as screwed as if it runs for 1,000 hours but takes 1,000 hours to fill a car. All of these things they're doing seem to be in the right direction and all work together and are equal parts important.

Originally I went in sub $0.01 and sold in 2014 at an average of 5.5 cents. I made a pretty big return (like 650%). Just because the share price bounces around though doesn't mean that the company is a scam. They've only switched their tech once from a solar concentration film in 2011 to their current project in 2012.

I've watched them steadily achieve milestone after milestone that they've said needs to happen to make this viable and now they're testing it as a whole unit. If they were inventing the car they'd say, okay, first we need a chassis, alright, we have a working chassis. Now we need to make wheels. Okay, we've made wheels. Now we need to make an engine. To listen to someone like Jose, you'd think the chassis, wheels, and engine are all separate "tech" that are unrelated. They had to get the voltage to 1.5V or moving on to the next piece would be irrelevant. I do wish they'd have laid out every step that needs to happen instead of reaching one and then telling us there's another step needed but that doesn't make them a scam and like I said, they've reached milestone after milestone and they're now in the testing phase.

To your point, getting the car to go far enough is more important than bettering the fuel efficiency. If the cells don't last long enough then it doesn't matter how much hydrogen is produced while it's working. I would assume once they reach a desired longevity of the cells without degradation, then they will focus on telling us how much hydrogen they are getting per minute or whatever metric they measure it by.

I'm totally fine with your choice not to invest because of something you believe. If you were going to scam someone for $250k a year, why wouldn't you start your company in Mobile, AL where $250k goes a lot farther than in Santa Barbara? Again, he has 10m shares and getting the company to $2 a share would make him worth $20M. If he got to that point, he would only need to make a return of 1.25% to make $250k a year sitting on his butt not scamming people which is a really low rate of return. At 5% he'd make $1M a year.

You think it's too risky and that's cool. There isn't any motive though to start a company in a really high cost of living area, making not a ton of money as a salary, and keeping your shares low. That's why I believe they are actually trying to get this to work and don't think they are a scam. I'm not saying they will or won't get there but I don't think they're just lying about what they're doing. It doesn't make any sense.

The fact that they haven't provided the info that you want doesn't prove that this is a scam. You clearly don't understand what it means to prove something. It only proves that they haven't provided info that you think they should. The SEC shutting them down for not doing the work they say they're doing would prove that they're a scam.

I have a couple of serious questions for people that think Tim Young is defrauding people for $250k a year. 1. You do realize that $250k in Santa Barbara, CA is not a lot of money right? 2. Do you realize that Tim Young has 10,000,000 shares so it is clearly much more beneficial for him to get this working and raise share price as high as possible? It would take him 40 years making $250k a year to reach $10M where as if he could even get this company to $2/share he'd be worth $20M (80 years at his current salary). Yea, I'm sure he's just thinking he's so smart only making $250k in Santa Barabara when he could be retired with millions. There isn't any motive to scam people when you're screwing (scamming) yourself out of way more money. That would just make you stupid.

They want you to do those problems without a construct because constructs ARE NOT BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. You answered your own question while making it clear you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, Apple has a patent on the iphone and yet thousands upon thousands of articles have been written about it and not a single person has been sued or arrested for patent infringement for those articles. Do you know why that is? Sounds like you had a pretty crappy patent attorney. I'm sure you went into great detail about the fact that people were going to write about the things you were getting patents on. Give me a break.

Again, what are you talking about that a patent protects you from writing about it? I'm pretty sure that tons of articles have been written about iphones and Apple definitely has a patent on them. All a patent does is protect the owner of a patent from someone else replicating and selling the object or process listed in the patent. Here...another definition for you since you clearly can't be bothered to pick up a dictionary...

Patent (Noun) - a government authority or license conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention.

Just curious where you see that you can't write about it or talk about it. Hint, you'll only find that crap in your head because you made it up.

No, proofs are not constructs. What are you talking about? Here, the definition for construct:

Construct (Noun) - an idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence.

A proof is not an idea or theory and it certainly isn't subjective. Please learn words before you use them and try to sound credible.

I'm not saying they are correct in touting the 190 hours as hydrogen production. I'm just saying you were comparing numbers that weren't related. If a car engine is good for 10 years but tires are only good for 1 or 2 that doesn't mean the whole car is only good for 1 or 2 years. You're conflating how long one part works with how long the whole device worked. Clearly the oxygen catalyst worked longer than the device as a whole but that doesn't mean the oxygen catalyst worked for any less amount of time (the 85 hours you said). They didn't say what caused the degradation so you're just speculating and that's fine. I haven't given my opinion at all about what this PR means but if you're going to make your point you can't go making up numbers that aren't real. They've literally never told us how long the all-in-one device has operated for. For all we know, last time they tested the all-in-one device it could have crapped out after 20 hours and now they're up to 105...which would be an increase of 85 hours.

I'm not sure what you don't understand about the FACT that the oxygen catalyst is NOT THE SAME as the all-in-one wireless solar-hydrogen device. You're conflating the FACT that the oxygen catalyst increased stable operation from 190 hours to 870 hours and the fact that the all-in-one wireless solar-hydrogen device had a stable operation of 105 hours. To say that it decreased from 190 hours to 105 hours is an 85 hour decrease is conflating two numbers that are not related to each other. Now you're bringing up the polymer coating for some reason, that no one was talking about at all, to try and make yourself seem smart and avert the attention away from the fact that you're just wrong in the statement that they had an 85 hour decrease.