To All
Below is a letter from Dr John Bream to DR Kelly. It is self explanatory, and probably mimics all our feelings.
Dr. Kelly,
I have emailed in the past about the Board needing to remove Dr. Pourhassan as CEO. I still feel the same today.
In look at this from several angles:
1) Shareholder value
I was apprised of this stock over a year ago due to COVID potential. I read about the science, Dr. Patterson’s work, and other potential indications, and I remain convinced of the potential of leronlimab.
So, let’s compare its stock price to its competitors in the last year:
HGEN - 3.50 -> 17.08 YoY
RLFTF - .04 -> 0.31 YoY
CYDY - 2.25 -> 3.09 YoY
To be fair, all of these stocks have had higher highs, but only CYDY has experienced lower lows. But, it remains CYDY has fared worse as an investment thesis for its shareholders in the short-term.
To be sure, Nader has done an excellent job at getting the share price out of the pennies, but the stagnation is significant currently.
2) Failure to execute
There have been notable execution failures and questionable decisions made, especially within the past 6-12 months. While these decisions are complex and certainly there are provisions limiting shareholder knowledge, I will highlight the major issues.
CD-10: The data here was fantastic. Why did CYDY not push forward with a phase 3 trial?
CD-12: The trial missed its primary endpoint. It should’ve been identified the trial was off track. Why was there no adaptive design? Why wasn’t the penalty taken to see preliminary results? Why wasn’t the second interim analysis done? Are there any other instances in which a company turns down the second interim analysis? How did DSMC and Amarex miss the differences between groups and that primary endpoint was going to miss and not adjust? Why was the decision made to go on Dr. Been without a clear grasp of the data? Why were the press releases so muddled? How were the decisions made to go against scientific advisors and only give 2 doses of leronlimab to critically ill patients? Why did Nader say that we had applied for “conditional EUA” when such a designation doesn’t exist?
As of this time, while there are interested parties internationally, there path toward an EUA is still murky as per the update yesterday while three paths are pursued.
HIV: The completed phase 3 trial is now three years old and the BLA has not been submitted. That’s simply unacceptable as it was the surest path to revenue. The delays are inexplicable and Nader, despite getting asked every shareholder meeting, doesn’t articulate the solution. Had the BLA not been bungled repeatedly, leronlimab would already be FDA approved and obtaining COVID approval would’ve been much simpler.
I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the fallout with Dr. Pattterson here. But, certainly not being on the same page with the leading expert on CCR-5 and one of the world’s leading HIV researchers hasn’t instilled confidence in the company. Fixing that bridge would certainly help with credibility and shareholder confidence/value. In addition, the receptor occupancy issue would instantly be resolved if working with IncelDx.
In addition, we have now learned that Dr. Rahman is no longer the company.
Funding/NASDAQ: CytoDyn continues to take out toxic loans. The loans may avoid dilution, however, the debt is toxic to the company. Why not just bite the bullet, raise the equity to uplist, and trade short-term pain for long-term gain with institutional investment that would be encouraged with NASDAQ listing? I’m concerned that these loans jeopardize the future of CYDY and makes CytoDyn beholden to potentially nefarious actors.
These are the issues that we know about. Who knows what else has occurred behind closed doors?
Due to all of these issues, CytoDyn has no sales. CytoDyn’s only goal is to sell product and generate revenue. This can be judged in no other way than failure.
3) Reputation
Put bluntly, Nader is a liability for CytoDyn.
Shorts feast on his statements. How many companies have their stock price plummet every time the CEO speaks? As above, the Dr. Been interview was absolutely destructive. We haven’t sold anything, and Nader speaks of three digit stock prices and dividends! Shareholders are submitting questions asking if he is a short. He spoke of a “conditional EUA” that doesn’t exist.
This type of conduct is just not CEO behavior.
In summary, I am thankful for what Nader has done to resurrect leronlimab. I think he has a good heart and truly cares about leronlimab. However, I don’t think he is the right fit to move leronlimab past the finish line. A CEO change should be undertaken by CytoDyn to maximize the company’s potential.
Best regards,
John
AI
