A little commentary on your second line:
"Let's remind ourselves that bringing on experienced leadership will work only when said leadership has Medizone as its primary focus."
Are you actually saying that if, for example, Medizone would decide to bring in someone to work at first alongside Ed, and then, as things develop, take over the position of CEO, you would reject this, because for the time being that person also has other commitments??
I don't know if such a scenario exists - but the fact that you even mention that this formula is unacceptable, implies that you also realize that something like this might be an option.
There was a time when a lot of us hoped that David Esposito might be the man to serve in this role. I guess this is no longer an option, but if there were someone with similar skills and experience, this would give Medizone a smooth and clear transition to the next stage.
We all agree that the present management team needs to be upgraded and enhanced. But you are rejecting the possibility of a gradual transition, and going for the jugular, "Total change or bust".
This is IMO reckless. Creating chaos by mounting a forced change, especially when we just may be close to moving forward with the EPA, means we're letting frustration and anger - justified as they may be - control our destiny.
"Total change or bust" doesn't make sense, if that approach might just be creating the bust.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
