Where we at?, page-612

I for one don't want to see that.
I have not supported everything he's done, but:

* founder led organizations are more likely to succeed
* he has navigated a potential blockbuster from inception to what is close to the endgame with critical announcements due any day
* he knows the company, and the drug, and probably the pitfalls better than the very vast majority of people who could take over
* he has shown a willingness to adapt and listen by appointing an advisor and a new board member only a few months ago

I would rather own shares in a company that has suffered delays and communication issues, but remains steadfastly on track than take on someone new who may have the qualifications but perhaps not the wisdom to stay on track. I have seen too often new leadership trying to flex their muscles or prove themselves too quickly by making drastic changes to the status quo. Too risky. Let it be, I say. We are getting there.