Also, CYDY has to give 12.5% of royalties to former owners of Pro 140 including Abbvie, who walked away from the drug. That's A LOT for nothing. Usually you give up something to get something. There is no partnership here. A partner would provide manufacturing, distribution and marketing help. So, that's a lot of potential revenue off the table for nothing.
1) Dilution is ongoing...only raised $2 million out of $30 million needed with a reverse stock split imminent barring a major increase in share price. This is a red flag.
2) The Chairman of the Board at CYDY used to work for years at Gilead - he could either fund a portion of the capital raise himself - if he truly thought the Pro-140 technology was such a game changer as he knows the cocktails of HIV drugs probably better than anyone - or he should know everyone you would need to know in biotech in order to raise capital with a strong investor group. This is a red flag, as CYDY should not be having issues with uplisting requirements or with funding if the Pro 140 was such a game changer.
3) Gilead - Why hasn't Gilead knocked on the door...they have the most to lose in the drug cocktail area and its former Chairman is now the CYDY Chairman...there is a disconnect here. Another red flag.
4) CamImmune and others are indeed working on single shot gene therapies for HIV. While Pro-140 is more advanced, it doesn't deal with all the potential strains of HIV, and it could be trumped by any gene therapy showing efficacy in early stage trials. That's a Red Flag and a big risk for investors.
5) Monotherapy data puzzles me: Results from the initial 14-week treatment substitution monotherapy trial (which excludes viral load failures due to patient screening errors) were as follows:
98% of the patients passed 4 weeks of monotherapy
91% of the patients passed 6 weeks of monotherapy
82% of the patients passed 8 weeks of monotherapy
70% of the patients passed 11 weeks of monotherapy (maximum allowable monotherapy without an extension study)
14 patients, who were offered to continue in an extension study with this monotherapy, are approaching 6 months without experiencing a viral load rebound. We know some of these 14 patients have shown 11-months of no viral load, which is great, but 30% patients did not pass. Again, not as strong as it could be...