Ann: MND Biomarkers and Pharmacodynamics Results, page-328

Who led it to failure?

Did you read my post or is it too long?

Let me try to simplify without over-simplifying:

The current management was formed essentially in late 2013 with the merger of PharmAust and Pitney Pharmaceuticals (the mob that brought with it the monepantel project).. By then, Epichem was already ten years old, the child of a PharmAust project that never managed to be more than a tiny business. Under the new management, PharmAust did grow to a much greater size, but was not able to sustain that growth. You should ask WHY in the last twenty years, from its establishment in 2003, Epichem struggled to grow, and most of that growth was under the current BoD (post 2013). When I looked into it years ago, I discovered the market it was selling its services in was highly fragmented and specialised. It was always going to be a very difficult uphill battle. That they managed to grow for a couple of years and pay off the loan for the lab expansion in just a few years was in fact quite an achievement imo,

Imo Epichem was always a bit of a distraction from PharmAust's main game of drug development in its Pitney arm, and this was why I rarely commented on it, but so long it covered its own costs, it didn't bother me, though it had occurred to me long ago that having Epichem in the same company as Pitney Pharmaceuticals confused the market as to what PharmAust was about. especially the sharemarket algos. Well no longer.