Ann: Notice of General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-38

Good question Fifer. I probably would have had doubts about running a trial using multiple different product manufacturers in more than one country, there would always have to be questions about reliability in such a situation. There may have been no way around this but I would like to know why the Phase 2 acne trial could not have been run 100% in Oz? Some on this forum may have some insight as to whether this would have been an FDA thing, a suck up to the USA or was it simply enrolling enough numbers.

Further, I would like to have more insight into why the dermatitis phase 1 trial looked so promising and then in phase 2 it was useless. There seems to be a big disparity in effectiveness between the two, understandable if phase 1 was on animals but it was on humans. So again unanswered questions about the conduct of trials.

However, as I have said previously, these trials were set up before Vince took charge. He has turned the ship towards what he has identified as the most favourable winds which are supported by multiple university studies. My faith is now in Vince's extensive experience in knowing how to identify potential big $ and getting us there in an efficient and effective manner.