While it is not unreasonable, IMHO, to believe Cooper has done a poor job based on considerations of capital management determining which therapies to pursue with what specific approaches, I think it's a big stretch, for which almost all here do not have the expertise or experience, to judge Cooper's medical decisions based on ethics or appropriate concern for patients.
Cooper's patients, especially those with glioblastoma, will sadly die in weeks/ months no matter what is done to help them otherwise. Trying "something" that may work given the best medical knowledge available is a gift the doctor, the patient, and the patient's family is giving to the rest of us because, irrespective of whether the treatment helps the patient, the outcome adds to our knowledge of what might or might not work, which will benefit others in the future. No cancer treatments are "slam dunks" prior to Ph1 data.
To condemn or second guess those kinds of decisions based on medical considerations is at the least ill-considered.
That said, those decisions are not just medical decisions, they are also capital allocation decisions. Even if our funding of ZIOP were purely charitable, it would not be good judgment to provide therapies that "could work" if the cost of doing so would take away funding from other therapies with more promise.
I agree with those who are coming to the conclusion iL12 for glioblastoma is not more than marginally promising -- and really hasn't been from the first Ph1 data. It does appear Cooper may have allowed his personal mission to treat glioblastoma effectively to cloud his business judgment as to whether that has been a good use of ZIOP capital.