Responding for me is difficult as I am well aware of the need to walk the legal line and at the same time not have what I say be potentially misleading in any way... so here goes.
1) From the very beginning I have communicated my opinions as to Dr. Musick's business acumen. He is a brilliant scientist and thinks that is carried over into business and many other aspects in his life. I would not be a shareholder if I didn't think the value of the company had matured to a level that was no longer dependent on him. In my opinion what has been developed here, sans his presence is of potentially much greater value than the current price of the stock.
2) Has anyone else been in communication with the 3 key individuals, recognizing that now the board has been reduced by one? I have. It started with the sale of stock by Dr. Musick, continued through recent events and why I went silent because I have been deposed 5 times for insider trading by the SEC. Not pleasant, not cheap, but the record for the SEC is 0 wins because there never was any insider trading on my part. That said, the SEC folks I have been exposed to are some of the most unethical people I have had to deal with. They will do, say, create (fabricate) anything, intimidate...
3) Let's consider what has been communicated publicly.
Regarding sale of stock by management. This was followed by a letter stating the reasons. Ask yourself why and what the motivation was behind this letter being written.
The 8-K stating the resignation of Shuster without a press release reflects what I was saying above. Unfortunately that is all we know, however, we also know from public documents that:
Shuster owns stock and one could assume has an interest in the price of VODG.
An recent email I have from him had on it Neuromics/Vitro Diagnostics.
I would conclude from this that the selling arrangement is still solid and moving forward, but I can't go into any other details.
The publicly stated business in Europe has been strong and clinical trials are scheduled to start this year.
In my opinion, the smartest thing Dr. Musick could do would be to sell the company to a larger bio/pharm company so he could spend his time concentrating on the science, get himself and shareholders compensated and make sure that his lifetime of work continues on past his.
Those are reasons to own the stock in addition to the possibility that the patents, etc. are worth more than the current value of the stock - sans Dr, Musick. Finally, if something where to happen to him, his stock is held in trust. His wife, runs a business that supplies chemical devices and has been voted business person of the year at least once in the Denver area...
At times over the years Dr. Musick has been as much of a liability to the price of the stock as he has been an asset to building enterprise value. That is just something shareholders need to come to grips with and respond accordingly. As for myself, I came back to this stock after an initial successful venture with it and have held on for several years. My cost is slightly less than Thursday's close and my own opinion is that the probabilities of significant gains and the associated compounded rate of return over the years held will prove to be worth the aggravation of the price swings and watching Dr. Musick shoot himself in the foot when it comes to public communications.
While over the years my batting average has been quite good at hitting long balls, I have struck out. In my best judgement the risk/reward favors owning this stock, but again it is just one man's experience which happens to be 40 years as of 2015.
I am not trying to influence anybody one way or another, simply providing my opinions.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
