You wrote:Some are essentially and specifically disagreeing with...

You wrote:

Some are essentially and specifically disagreeing with me. Here and within the company.

After I wrote:

Pledge - no one, that I can see is essentially disagreeing with you that it is not guraranteed that CYP has enough cash to complete the trial as planned.

I was actually with the colored bit, trying to suggest, you have a point if you go that far and that far only. To my knowledge no-one has guaranteed not cash raise prior to GvHD trial(s) completion - and I would like a commitment that their will be no CR'es for GvHD trials from Brookes and from Kilian without them resigning their positions with the company and declining to be involved in biotech directorships ever again if they do cash raise - just so things are clear - but they probably won't be providing such a commitment.

Now, you can be pithy and brief on occasion but you do say a lot of things not all of which are pithy, or specific, or even true, if we add up all the occasions you choose to post. You know that about you. You often go way O.T.T (over the top, i.e. - exaggerating ! Making you points ridiculous by overstating or miss stating them).

This is in my opinion unfortunate because a lot of what you say when it comes to encouraging shareholders to hold management of biotech companies to account (specifically on MSB and CYP) is a really good message (in my opinion) and really good advice (in my opinion) because both MSB and CYP directors get away with way too much - and its the shareholders that are responsible for that --- but the problems is, a problem for me and much as it is for you, that HotCopper isn't a forum where long terms shareholders opinions that are actually interested in and directed towards getting good management and governance from their boards are not favored over other members comments that may be coming simply from trader, even completely, ignorant, even completely self-serving zero sum game commentary.

Here on HotCopper, all opinions, that don't breach the terms of use (and often those that do - but aren't eggregious or dangerous to the business model violations) are pretty much tolerated even if they are absolutely nonsensical.

So the answer to the question you ask MSB shareholders is much the same as the answer I've asked of shareholders (when the questions are on HotCopper), why they don't do plain sensible stuff, is that HotCopper distorts the message away from doing plan sensible stuff.

If you actually want shareholder activism where sensible stuff can be effectively pursued because its sensible - you (and I) will probably need another forum.

Perhaps someone will have to invent it. Perhaps there is a market opening?