When MT first reported the DMC informed him we could request additional looks at the data with minimal alpha loss, Michael was surprised? Why was he surprised. Shouldn't a CEO cashing checks of $71,000 per month in salary and bonuses know this?
Second, Michael has repeatedly told us about his strong and close relationship with the FDA. He felt certain that all we had to do is request another interim look, suffer a minor alpha loss and the request to the change the SPA would be granted. He obviously does not have a close a relationship the FDA as he thinks he does.
I think it is time for him to rethink his strategy. Get big Pharma on board.
Davis come on man you get frustrated this easy?
Yes they do have a close relationship with the FDA but why would that guarentte a second look?
Sorry but you took his words and made them work for you. I never EVER heard him say definite second look and none of you did either plain and simple.
Quit bellyaching because you invested more hoping for a pop and you lost out on it.
Thats why your frustrated because YOU were wrong not anyone else.
Hold on now! Shareholders are not totally to blame for their losses! We make our decisions based upon the guidance and outlook of our CEO. Perhaps safe-harbor can protect MR T from criminal prosecution but it cannot keep us from pointing a finger at him.
Mr T depends upon some basic truths about shareholders to keep this game going...many are like me: to stubborn and stupid to sell at a loss. But most are simply forgetful: How many of you forgot about the illegal PIPE? How many of you forgot that Mr T stated emphatically "we will not use the CEF to fund the company!"? How many of you forget that he touted "transparency" but so often we find out about material events via other sources?
I like it that Mr T became so very familiar with our research so quickly when coming on board. But he needs to be "in touch" (figuratively) with common shareholders.
Agreed. Fire Michael, but ONLY if big Pharma is brought in. Lax Mink is the true puppet master and probably has a short account over in Switzerland near is "other home" that's the same size as his FREE (shareholder supplied) Long account here in the states, only with a mirror image holding (short a like amount). Truth is, it's possible that he too cashes in his options as soon as they vest, with the only difference being that he's not allowed to sell until the specified vesting period is over, hence the "short against the box" which would of course be reported as NAKED shorts, but actually covering for an illegal insider trade. Pure spec on my part, but not necessarily wrong.
Big pharma will NOT GET involved leaving Turango in charge. They did not get big letting the inept be incontrol of anything. Our best shot is bite the bullet, pay the clown his golden parachute, and replace him with leadership the market would repect.
I'm not in the industry and even I know those are dumb points. To the first one, he said the suggestion by the DMC was extremely unusual, "breaking new ground".
As to the second, having the FDA pick up the phone when you call isn't exactly an automatic guarantee to
any request you have. Hey, my bank picks up the phone when I call them. They refused me when I asked
for a million bucks today.
Dumb, really dumb stuff now. Take a nap.
Yeah, c'mon David! No one here actually expected a second look to happen! Yeah right. This is shameless backtracking even for an anonymous message board. Everyone here was hoping for a second look and thought it would happen. That was a result of management's PRs.
If I remember correctly, management made it sound like the DMC brought up that the company could go back for a second look. What were we supposed to think? The DMC suggested that for no reason? Just for laughs? Or was it the company that suggested it? I guess we'll never know. Silly us for trusting the CEO of a publicly traded company on that point. But we should totally trust him to carry out dilutions and the rest of the trial with no insight into what's going on. Of course.
I also recall Mikey talking about their great relationship with the FDA. So are we supposed to automatically infer that nothing will come their talks with the FDA? I don't recall Mikey saying "we have a great relationship with the FDA, but be advised that SPAs are almost never revised mid-trial." No, he made it sound like he could get it done.
A good CEO doesn't disappoint. A good CEO is realistic upfront rather than raising expectations and then failing to deliver. Mikey is not a good CEO. And please stop the "I never expected a second look and I'm relieved it's not happening talk." It's ridiculous.