RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Is anyone one adding? Why or why not?So you're argument is that because they didn't listen to the message last year, give them a pass this year? I don't think so.
jfm1330 wrote: You sent the so called message last year and what good did it achieve?
Do you think Levesque and Svoronos are not aware that shareholders are frustrated and unhappy?
Levesque was supposed to be so much better than Tanguay when he came in. Up to now, he brought no added value to the company. He did nothing Tanguay could not have done. The big pharma guy was not able to change anything, and if TH1902 is a success, it will still be an asset acquired by Tanguay.
The reality is that Thera is a speculative investment with Egrifta as a baseline asset in case of total failure in the R&D programs. The other reality is that R&D development takes time. Maybe that in 9 months we will praise a brilliant strategy with TH1902 and totally forgive the very slow execution or we will be down to Egrifta in lipo.
juniper88 wrote: I don't believe most of us actually want to vote off the entire board or even specific members. We don't have the power to do that. And because we don't have the power we are free to vote that way just to send a message.
jfm1330 wrote: I read all the complaints about management and the board and I understand the frustration with the company's performance, but I don't understand the idea to vote out the whole board, or even a single member of the board since there is no way to evaluate each member's contribution. I am old enough on this board to remember the reaction of some when Thera bought Katana. It was seen as just a lottery ticket, and now, just three years later, it is the main program of the company. Katana was bought under the former CEO, Luc Tanguay who was seen as an incompetent by some here. The same who are explaining to us the potential of the cancer market and how the company should be run...
Personnally, I am frustrated by only one thing, and it is the very poor guidance the company gave on the timeline to complete phase Ia. You cannot be so wrong about something like that. It raises questions about the understanding of the clinical trial realities by the company and it sows doubt about things to come. They did the same with the NASH program. The were too optimistic and had to find a way to walk back their promises. Overpromising and underdelivering lead to what we see with the stock price. The level of confidence in the potential of the company is low because they underdeliver and need to walk back on their plans, NASH, Trogarzo in Europe, and huge delay in phase Ia in oncology. That does not mean that it will all end up in nothing of value, but at this point, it is only negative news, delays, and postponements.