Ann: Share Purchase Plan Booklet & Option Prospectus, page-34

If Cymerus cells are as consistent as Ross loves to tell us, then this should be relatively simple to show.

This is an excerpt from the Margeaux Hodgson-Garns poster. It was presented and I was peeved that it was because it was giving up data shareholders had essentially paid for. Something which seems to be a habit of Ross and Kilian's - feed the shareholders mushroom food and present the actual information swanning around in conference centres like academics where people who might understand might actually pick up real insider information Pfeifer wanted to post about twins. I pretty much lost my * at that point. Because the last thing needed was comic relief to lighten the mood as the boat was going down.

Anyway - the poster shows SOME heterogeneity SOME variability between three different (batches I suppose they are ?) of Cymerus induced MSCs. The point of the slide is to emphasize that there is less heterogeneity compared to other types/sets - like adipose, bone marrow, umbilical chord - but that doesn't change that even within the Cymerus set where supposedly all the cells are from a single donor - there is still some vairability/heterogeneity - the cells can't be completely homologous after culturing and handling or they'd not separate out like that.




These aren't paper cuts - they're chronic, open wounds that struggle to heal. Just putting stuff on it doesn't cut it - you need something to encourage to tissue to regenerate. There is good pre-clinical data that our cells work.

Here is an offer for you - you find me the best science review paper on diabetic wounds you can read an I'll read it for you. I know you don't just put 'stuff' on. Recombinant cytokines and exosomes are hardly just stuff. But I don't know what you know about DFU either.

I know that I will be able to learn whatever science paper you give me - might take me a week - but I'd get it (understand it) eventually if you were Kilian providing it. But could you provide a good one? Would you know what a good one is - one that say distinguishes between say how an open would made by surgically removing burnt tissue is going to be different to an open wound arising as a result of underlying diabetes?

I'm not trying to dis you or to be a smart alec I'm just saying I think I can follow you through any science papers you can read if you want to get real technical on this.

I may be ignorant about some important differences between diabetic wounds and other types of wounds - that's possible - but I might also be more aware than you are of the sorts of 'stuff' that might be available to apply to wounds in future based on other things I've learned than you currently appreciate or possibly know to give me credit for - so a really good science paper would be a way to proceed maybe.