What do you think of this, page-10

To answer your question not much. I hope for his employer that this is not the usual quality of his analysis.

1. The response in the recent trial was similar to that seen in the historical trials. I am not sure what sort of response your analyst friend thinks would be good, but for a single agent trial in this patient population it was in the opinion of the experts in the field very good.

2. Bisantrene. These were two patients who had relapsed and didn’t respond to any other treatments. They were given bisantrene and were cured. The saddest thing for me is there were 11 other kids in the trial that also responded to bisantrene (out of 24), but the doctors at the time could not match them for a bone marrow transplant (you need to get a bone marrow transplant to be cured of AML). Today all these kids would have been given a bone marrow transplant.

3. Disagree. The Israeli results confirm the historical data is still valid. If we were to run a larger trial in the USA and got the same result as the historical trials the FDA would be likely to approve bisantrene. Have a look at the two case studies in the last investor update to see what is the current standard for AML approval in the USA.

4. Pipedream. Yes cell therapy is promising, but anyone who thinks cell therapy will displace chemo in the next 3 to 5 years is a dreamer. 20 years maybe, 3 years no way. In the mean time we need better chemo treatments. I should also add that bisantrene is now a targeted agent in three of the hottest areas of oncology - RNA methylation deregulation, stem cells, and immuno-oncology. A boring old chemo drug from the 80s it is not.

5. You don’t need $50 million to run a US Phase II trial. The last two drugs for AML were approved out of Phase II. Your friend really has no idea of how the FDA approaches the AML space these days.

If your analysis friend would like to talk to me I am happy to go into all these areas in depth - my email address is [email protected]