It is about time that those of you who constantly gripe about the glitches, delays, and poor decisions that have indeed plagued Medizone for so long, realize one very basic reality.
If we had a sharp, experienced, CEO for the past fifteen years, the ONLY smart professional decision that he would have made is to let the company go bankrupt, use the potential of the science to put together venture capital, and start out fresh with a private company, unburdened by regulators and shareholders' expectations.
Ed told me a while ago that he was asked many times when discussing AsepticSure with possible manufacturing or distribution partners, "Why did you go public so quickly, before you actually had a product ready to sell?" That question was obvious, because all of the stages that we have been watching unfold so painfully, usually happen under the radar, without any kind of scrutiny from regulators or shareholders. Once they get it right, they start marketing a finished product, then go public and make their zillions.
So Ed would answer them, that they're 100% correct. That's how AsepticSure should have been developed. Problem is that he stepped into a public company, that was incorporated in 1986, was riddled with problems, and would have collapsed in the mid-90's, as most tiny companies do.
And over the years, Ed was offered funds IF he would take the company private, so investors could make a mint. He refused to do that, even though he knew that from a business perspective he probably should do so. It would also have made his life a lot easier. But out of a sense of loyalty to the shareholders, who would have lost all of their investment, he refused.
And there were times that he had second thoughts about that decision, especially considering the burden of SEC filings and regulations, and being at the mercy of shareholders who tend to be impatient and critical, and enjoy making Three Stooges jokes.
So what would have been your preference? Have an inexperienced CEO who, as you have said in the past, is learning on the job, and has made mistakes, but has brought things forward despite these limitations?
Or would you have preferred an experienced CEO who would focus on the bottom line, bring in a lot of venture capital, dazzle the investment bankers, and shaft the shareholders?
(Why can't we have both, you say? An experienced CEO who is also idealistic and loyal to shareholders? Be my guest, open your own company and show the world how it's supposed to be done.)
It is pathetic and disgusting to me to read the kind of stuff that has been circulating recently. Am I happy with the share price? Of course not, and it has caused me a lot of grief. Is management responsible and accountable? Of course.
But you know the saying, "Be careful what you ask for, you may get it." The results would not be what you are looking for, trust me.
