Btw......I always tell myself when reading anyone's post .....that is just one persons opinion. Especially, if I'm unfamiliar with the writer. Overtime ,I accumulate my own personal book of knowledge and intuition on said subjects. I also always have been a seeker of knowledge and information. He does seem to have some knowledge and intelligence . Don't know at all what motivates him or why he came back to board after being gone so long.Hmmmmmm.....
Well, let's see(being the seeker of knowledge that I am).
Shout out to Tdarren.....with all due respect ....why did you come back after so long???
I cannot speak to the medical side of tdarren's comments, but with regards to the finances he stated on 12.06 that: "Traditionally companies like NVIV are privately held and/or held by venture capital firms that are fully aware of the risks involved. "
Well,they did. From 2005-2010 this is exactly what they did prior to going public.
This makes me rather suspect of all of his other "research" into NVIV as tdarren clearly missed the boat on the financial side of the house. This company was a long time in the making prior to going public to access public markets.
I wouldn't listen to him anyway--one of the reasons I invested in NVIV is the outstanding team they have assembled-especially Dr. Robert Langer---just read the recent NY Times article on his work (11/24/12)--he has helped start 25 companies and has 811 patents (issued or pending). In fact more than 250 companies have licensed or sublicensed Langer Lab patents. He wouldn't be sitting on the board of directors at NVIV if he thought their work was going nowhere--when it comes to presenting your work to the FDA having Dr. Langer on your team will almost guarantee success---so whatever tdarren argues against NVIV doesn't mean anything to me
Good point - Dr. Langer, with his NY Times article on November 24, 2012, is on the record as helping start 25 companies, with a total of 811 patents - current or pending. Amazing that 250 companies have licensed his patents. I agree he wouldn't be on the BOD unless this company had a very high probability of success. Who would know better than the ex-chairman of the FDA's science board.