Ann: Response to media article, page-10

I do agree with your statement that SPL are in conflict with the regulators in three countries. That's not in doubt. I just believe there are valid and varying reasons as to why. Some have been directly stated by SPL whilst others remain between the lines for obvious reasons.

I do appreciate at least that you accept the SPL vs TGA case is a grey area in regard to blame. There are also grey areas in the SPL vs FDA and SPL vs MHRA cases also we could explore if there was value, but it's probably moot.

But I will concede however, that if a big pharma had pitched Viraleze to the regulators, the result would likely be very different. Big pharma has both the experience and resources to better navigate the regulatory processes but also the political horsepower to bring pressure to bear when needed. You could argue SPL and its consultants should have better handled the former but a small Australian biotech is a lightweight at the political level at at the whims of other 'interested' parties!