Dear Hank, rick davis, and so many other good and honest Threaders,
I too am furious about some of the recent events at Paracelsian. (And given my "position," I more than share your pain.)
As I see it, it is vitally important to locate the problem, and then to work constructively at fixing it.
Generally, two topics.
I. On April 3, 1997, I sent the following fax to Keith Rhodes.
Dear Mr. Rhodes,
These are difficult times for our Company. As I am sure that your agenda is full, I shall move right to the point.
I cannot help but believe that the departure of Dr. John Babish has increased the workload of key personnel at Paracelsian, Simultaneously, it has enhanced their importance. To lose additional people could, I believe, imperil the launch of our first two products, and thus imperil our Company. We need these people in place, and we need them sharply focused and highly motivated.
I write urging you to give serious thought to this issue: do the current modes of compensation, and the current levels of compensation, achieve this vital task?
Jonathan Schonsheck
Stockholder
Mr. Rhodes called me the next day, Friday 4 April. He assured me that the Board was unanimous in its support of the business plan (product launch), and that he was attentive to the matter of retaining key personnel. I, of course, felt reassured.
Within a few hours, a member of the Board, and one of the Company's founders, T. Colin Campbell, announced his resignation.
Within a few days, the Company's CFO, and the person principally responsible for the launch of AndroVir, Art Koch, resigned from the Company.
Within a few weeks, the Company announced a delay in the launch of its first product, citing the loss of key personnel.
Taken together, I believe that this paints an accurate portrait of just whom at PRLN is not to be trusted.
II. In light of the above, I am deeply suspicious of the claim by Rhodes that AndroVir is in need of "further evaluation." This does not ring true. Consider all of the following:
1. We have a great deal of information on the safety of the compound from its historical use.
2. It has been extensively studied in the lab by Paracelsian, using the Company's proprietary signal transduction technology
3. All the pivitol work done in vitro has been replicated by other scientific groups: at the National Cancer Institute, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, East Virginia Medical School. All this was reported in earlier press releases.
4. We have the results of the Bastyr trials
5. Three peer-reviewed publications concerning the basic signal transduction technology have just appeared in the scientific literature
6. The Press Releases about HIV-1 trials were reviewed by independent scientists with clinical experience with HIV-1, and also by corporate and regulatory counsel
7. We have done well over a year of work with the National Cancer Institute, first under a Letter of Intent, and then under a formal CRADA
Now is it really believable that something important has been missed, so that "further evaluation" is necessary? Or does someone have an ulterior motive? I am far more inclined to doubt the source (Rhodes) than to doubt the product.
Something has gone wrong at Paracelsian - but I believe that the fundamental value - the screening technology, and the TCM library -- endures.
As I see it, we need to find some way to put "Rhodes" and "road" in the same, short sentence.
Jonathan Schonsheck |
