WW,It's obvious I don't own AVX, so your question is rather...

WW,

It's obvious I don't own AVX, so your question is rather mute. A bit silly actually! Thanks, but no thanks ... I won't be ringing Drona or whoever. The action or lack thereof from big pharma tells me more than enough.

I haven't professed my support for CYT at all ... where do you get that from. More faulty logic I say!

I'll take the next step once this merger is voted down. I'm VERY dissatisfied with our BOD and I definately don't see a compelling reason to get involved with AVX because the clowns running the show reckon every HIV drug that has made it to phase III trial has gone on to be successful. If the clinical data was so strong, tell me why big pharma hasn't jumped all over AVX?

I don't give a flying fig about spending time trying to find a morsel of merit that may theoreticlly support a contrary mesage to the one already deliverd by big pharma. Mate ... you're not listening!

FWIW, Mr Worthwind the current vote is centered around a proposed merger with AVX, which I think, apart from the risks that I have already pointed out, is a pretty poor fit. What would it be going forward? An oncology company or a HIV company ... where is the focus. I don't trust either mob. (AVX or PGL).

Cheers
Boomer