gotta love this stock, page-15

Quantum, you just love levelling accusations of spin, don't you! With respect, and no offense intended, but I think it's you who are missing the point, especially with regard to revenues and delivering outcomes. Listen to the conference call again. Revenues are being delivered, as we speak. What is wrong with an initial $50-$70 million contract over seven years that has the potential to deliver those revenues not in total, but each and every year once all the geographic territories are included? Nothing, as far as I can see. Perhaps you would rather the company had not signed it at all? It amazes me that this achievement is treated with such disdain, and dismissed as irrelevant, or nor delivering an outcome.

It is a hugely significant outcome, the first supply agreement in the company's history, that was signed for all the reasons Alan said it would be signed - including mandatory safety requirements and differentiating product in the market place, etc. etc.

I agree with you about proving it has a sustainable business - that's a given - but multiple agreements were never going to be signed all at once to prove this up. You surely must understand that no business operates this way. That said, who's to say that several agreements won't be delivered one after in a relatively short period of time, as the multiple current negotiations are successfully concluded? Alan has repeatedely stated this is what is going to happen, and unless and until it doesn't happen, nobody can say it won't.

As for the 1ml, it was effectively a prototype and illustrates very effectively the point about market evolution. Why on earth would you try to compete in a commoditised market dominated by several seriously entrenched incumbents with a low-price low-margin product when other more lucrative markets are available that offer the opportunity not only for significant revenues and profits, but also a degree of market dominance? You wouldn't. I would go so far as to say that it would verge on incompetence to do so.

These are not decisions that Alan is making unilaterally. They are considered decisions made by a hugely experienced board and executive team based on everything they know about the market they are operating in, the clients they are talking with, and the needs of those clients.

The point is that Unilife's business plan has eveloved as its products have evolved in response to evolving market requirements. You make it sound that the company is just off on a R&D flight of fancy for the sake on it. It isn't.

Every one of the products now developed - and no not like Orbital at all, Unilife has products that are fully developed and in early stage production, no longer merely in development stage, as Alan specifically pointed out re Unifill and the Auto-Infusers - every one of these products has been developed in response to unmet market needs. The clients are saying, this technology is great but we need it in a slightly different format. That is the activity the company is currently engaged in. And like it or not, it's an activity that precedes sales contracts.

As for timelines being stretched, yes they have been. Have you never started something, even a relatively simple task, that ended up taking longer than initially envisaged? I have. Posting on HC is but one example!

Everyone shares the frustration, especially in the current uncertainty, but unfortunately biotech is an industry where, despite best intentions, outcomes always take longer than expected. You cannot accuse Alan of hype and spin while at the same time demanding full disclosure of confidential matters he is not at liberty to disclose. I am sure if he could, he would. Meanwhile he and the entire company are working dligently to deliver the outcomes that we all want to see.

I have no reason to believe they won't happen, and in the meantime will be fascinated to read Loogs' report to see how much it differs from what I've been saying.

Anyway, this has taken far longer than I originally anticipated, so ciao for now and as always, good luck.