The Thesis That Nader May Be A Fraud.
1. Past Behaviors Used To Detect Trends In Current Behaviors.
In the past I defended Nader's brushes with the law. His passing a bad check as the act of a poor student and the legal system of Utah looking down on an immigrant. His messy domestic situation and violating restraining orders as a consequence of emotional and turbulent divorce proceedings. His passing off Native American artwork as authentic because the law was unconstitutionally vague. Now it is time to look at the other side of the coin. Rather than find reasons to excuse or condemn him, to simply look at the actions he is involved in and what that signals.
What we see is that Nader is habitually entangled in behaviors that transgress the law. In each instance we see an individual engaged in a particular act of fraud, each instance the actions taken can be seen as someone who thinks they are smarter than everyone else.
The first crime, check fraud. This one is open and shut. You have someone taking a bad check, forcing it to be cashed, and in the short term getting one over on a financial institution. Here someone thinks they are smarter than the system. Here is someone taking short term solutions without considering or not caring about long term consequences. Regardless at the end of everything fraud was committed.
The second crime, Nader's violating a court order. Nader violated a no contact order under the guise of communicating with another family member. Again open and shut. You have a person already under the eye of the court, violating a court order because they thought they were smarter than the system. So now we have two events where despite the overwhelming ability of the system to detect fraud, Nader opted to commit it believing he could some how get around the system. Instead this time he is directly going against the legal system. We see again need fulfillment with short term solutions ignoring long term implications.
The third crime, Native American artwork fraud. Here is the only time Nader got lucky getting around the system but not in the way he intended. Instead of being able to rely on having one or two people on staff allowing him to claim Native American's produced the art, he got off on an unforeseen technicality because the law was poorly crafted. Again Nader deployed fraud to achieve his goals. He got caught, and what he relied on to allow him to avoid consequences failed. He got very lucky on appeal.
So we have three serious events in his life that where the law was broken, fraud was used as a tool by Nader and a lack of consideration for long term consequences. What is troubling is that these events are a continuation of behaviors started in his youth. Nader was a young student and as he got older he was still committing fraud. So it's not a rough patch in the life of a young man. It is a repeating pattern during the progression of Nader's life.
2. If We Accept Nader Has A Problem, Are We Seeing It Again?
I will continue to leave the door open that all these past events are just coincidences, that Nader has learned his lesson, or even inaccurate. The question is what are we seeing now with CYDY. Looking at his time CYDY alone can we see a trend. If we do accept that Nader is repeating his past, do we see that trend repeating again at CYDY?
First we have the RTF for HIV. Nader has given conflicting accounts of what the problem was. First it was the self injecting device. A relatively easy thing to cure for a mechanical engineer. Then later he stated the Occupancy Receptor was the issue. That is a bigger problem that requires expertise outside of Nader's wheelhouse. What is more concerning is one is a minor issue, one is an issue with the science itself. So why has Nader misstated, left out or other wise fudged such an important detail?
Short term solution to a long term problem.
Then we have the two conflicting PR's regarding the COVID trial. First Nader stated the drug showed only a positive trend for reducing mortality but not the P values needed. Then a competitor released topline results that saw CYDY fall behind. Nader a day later released a whooper of a a PR suggesting a P value of 84%. It just so happens he had to manipulate the study to get that number. In a study not designed to actually separate out severe and critical patients to be considered seperately, Nader did just that. Nader took only 16% of the entire study to get his magic number. The irony is the study was designed to lump everyone together so that the P value had the best chance of being significant. So what do we have here? Data manipulation done in a panic. Another word for it is fraud. Making the study to appear statistically significant when it was not.
Again a short term solution to a long term problem.
After that we have Nader several multiple times that CYDY was asking for a "Conditional EUA." This one is short and simple. There is no such thing as a "Conditional EUA." Nader actually had to walk this statement back. So why did he throw out this whooper? Well it piggybacked right off his conflicting PRs. He was covering one fraud with another.
So this one a short term solution, to a failed short term solution creating a greater long term problem.
Whether or not you accept the thesis he is continuing a trend of fraud from that started in his younger days, you have to admit something isn't right currently.
3. So We Have Past And Present Troubling Events. Is The Next Event Happening Now?
Okay consider that each time we approach a binary outcome for CYDY's drug. Nader then shifts focus to a project further back. Correcting the problems with the HIV BLA shifted to COVID. Fixing COVID, we shifted to long haulers. COVID, HIV and Longhaulers now shifted to a focus on cancer.
Keep in mind HIV is the most likely to get CYDY much needed revenue. Revenue is the elusive lifeline for CYDY. It is the one thing Nader is consistently avoiding. Any time the company comes close and there is a problem, Nader's solution is to start a new project. Now at first it appears to be the hallmark of someone who does not understand how to manage or complete projects. After all Nader has never been successful as a businessman. On second look, this appears to be more of a rigged 3 card Monte game. The shuffling of projects, all done to hide failure.
The only reason to keep shifting around projects, avoid approvals and redirect people's attention is that the drug does not work in practice. It explains the disconnect between the EIND success stories, and the lack of success in the studies. It explains Nader's shifting explanations on every conference call, conflicting PRs, use of nonexistent terms like "Conditional EUA." I'm not even counting the oddball PR about financing in which one of the PRs seems to be a copy and paste from a PR from last November. I'm not even touching the repeat PRs, repeat conference calls, and repeated Proactive interviews.
4. Now What Brings The Fraud Thesis Toppling Down?
Just as the Fraud thesis has it's supporting points. There must be points that causes it to fundamentally topple right? Well in order to topple a thesis of fraud you have a few avenues. First, show that it is all actually incompetence. I won't spend any time on that because it's an unhappy outcome where even if you win you lose because the company comes apart. Second, and more beneficial for everyone is that Nader delivers actual successful studies and gets approvals from the FDA.
Look not all of CYDY's explorations into various applications are going to be successful. That's the nature of drug development. But getting one right is essential. Showing the drug works is essential. Getting an approval for something, like HIV the furthest along, shows that fraud is likely not occurring, therefore the analysis is likely not appropriate.
Regardless one certain thing is that Nader's management of the company has brought it to an inflection point. A point where the suggestion of fraud is not unreasonable, can be reasonably supported based on what we know, and something that every investor needs to consider.
5. Solutions
The solution is to challenge Nader on every conference call. Direct efforts at him, the board, Scott Kelly. Not wild goose chases with members of Congress, the FDA, mysterious billionaires in Vegas or shadowy business contacts with the "inside scoop." While retail investors do not have the level of power to dislodge a bad CEO. They can dig deep enough to unearth the truth and act accordingly.
