Lethalone, what are you basing as your bench mark for badly...

Lethalone, what are you basing as your bench mark for badly run/spending too much money?

Isn't the trials run by the scientists rather than directors?

Are you an experienced biofund director who has run / been intimately involved in running experiments to know what is considered by the industry as "good" and "bad"?

Are you a scineitist who has concudcted research trials that has led to drugs being developed?

Or are you shooting from the hip, making calls that you aren't qualified to make, to lower your anxiety over the frustration that drug development takes time, but ultimately will lead to great return should it work?

Furthermore, trying to find a seemingly rational reason for your decision to vote off nearly ALL board members who spent years developing relationships with the drug companies that probably don't want anything to do with the current board after the performance they put on.

You might not know this, but drug development takes time and is a long process. Thus a drug company that is willing to invest millions of their own money and do a deal with CBIO to further develop and commercialise the drug would want to be sure they trust the boards ethics, commitment and determination to see it to completion.

Blowing 40 grand worth of shares around the time NN said no questions the boards commitment and raises questions of insider trading. Plus have the crap thrown around by the SAG was questionable and almost childlike type reasoning. For example, they said in one of their addresses that CBIO directors reported the trial results in a way that wasn't positive, thus creating the perception that the trial was not a success. However, the responsibility of any ethical board is not to sell the sizzle, but report the results as they are, even if there is hope that with changes to the trial things could be better. What is worse, the current board who complained about this has done the same thing as the previous board and reported the trial results exactly as they are, that there was some success but not all of it resulted in a success.

One thing that doesn't need a wealth of knowledge to make a decision on is insider trading. As a substantial shareholder I still haven't been given answers as to what actually took place. Thus, questions still remain whether insider trading took place. Can you name one previous director who has shown conduct even close to insider trading? The last board made the appropiate decision to always have a trading halt when price sensitive information came to light.

This is hard core cash we are talking about. So lets get away from the illogical and get to the logic.