the alcholics trial, page-70

Hi Livas,

Regarding Kilroy, I don't really know enough about his background to make a call on how ethical he is. There isn't a lot of information available on him. I usually try to judge managerial actions over time rather than words. Most managers, particularly company spokesmen, have the gift of the gab and can lull you into a false sense of security. His background is OK. A Degree from an OK uni with good quality management consulting experience isn't bad, but he isn't a Rhodes Scholar or, more locally, another Mel Bridges of the Australian biotech world.

Soultanov's background is also Ok, but it doesn't really seem to be that much better than any Australian Professors'. The fact that he runs a business called the Body and Aura Centre (or soemthing to that effect) makes me very, very, sceptical of his quality. From memory, I also believe that a few of his treatments for various things have been called into question in the media in terms of their safety and benefit. This is only from memory, though, and I may be wrong.

Regarding Zhebrun and Bespalov, I don't really know what to make of them. Generally you can work out an academic's quality by looking at their international reputation and publication history. Russian science seems fairly insular and getting a really good read by either of these parameters is difficult. In the end, I wouldn't dismiss their views, but I wouldn't except them out right, either.

One of the difficulties I have with any of the science people that SLA rolls out is that they may well be holders in SLA through Solamind or, I guess, out right. Kilroy has said that many of the shareholders in Solamind are scientists in Russia amd if Zhebrun and Bespalov are holders of SLA, then I would just about discount what they were to say completely. Pay rates for academics, doctors and scientists in Russia are very, very low and the danger is, of course, that their desire to see SLA be successful may have an impact on the results they obtain. I am not saying their behaviour would be fraudulent. I am just saying that money has a way of influencing things and buying goodwill. It would be very nice if Solamind would publish a list of its shareholders. It would be much easier to determine what was going on if they did.

Regarding the clinical trials, I have a few issues, most arising from the review in biotech daily. The main one though is that when they choose comparators, they choose complementary medicines, such as essentiale forte. I mean if they were to run a cholesterol lowering trial against Lipitor (the current gold standard) and show just good comparable results, they would convince the western world in a second. Lipitor works well but has terrible side effects. That in nutshell is my main issues with SLA's trials.

Regarding THE AGE article, my gut feeling is that they weren't trying trade their way to wealth by holding onto the alcohlics trial results. I suspect the were more trying to manage news flow to ensure that they would have a steady supply to support the share price (as I have said before I am very sceptical about their claims regarding IP protection). Having said that, it was stupid of them to trade while in possession of the results even if it was for noble reasons. It just doesn't look good and if they don't need to raise capital, the shareprice becomes less relevant.

Anyway, that is all for now. Christ I can ramble on. I look forward to your reply.

Cheers,

Bill