NUZ -- New Investor thread, page-1654

I’ve seen some recent comments about my LinkedIn post regarding Neurizon’s executive travel. Let me expand on that here — because it’s a fair and necessary discussion for shareholders.

In just the past few weeks, senior management have embarked on three separate international trips:

• ENCALS 2025 (Europe): attended by John Clark, Sergio Duchini, and Chris Freitag.

• ALS awareness roadshow in the U.S.: Michael Thurn and Dan O’Connell.

• BIO International Convention (U.S.): Michael Thurn, Dan O’Connell, Paul Field, and Jeffrey Brown.

That’s at least 6 international flights across two continents — while the IND remains on clinical hold, with no material update to shareholders.

Let’s be clear: if these meetings and conferences are generating partnerships, lifting the IND, or driving value — then great. But where is the outcome? What has been achieved? How is this creating shareholder value right now?

To make matters more confusing, when the FDA placed the IND on clinical hold, the company immediately commenced trials to address issues — before even receiving written feedback from the FDA. That raises a legitimate question:

Did the company already know what the FDA would object to?
If so, was that information ignored in the initial submission?

Was it a strategic misjudgment — betting that human data could override preclinical concerns — or something else? Either way, the result is the same: delay, cost, uncertainty.

As for those suggesting I should keep my comments off LinkedIn — I respectfully disagree. Holding management accountable in public, where reputation matters, makes them work harder. Companies love to use LinkedIn when it suits them. Shareholders should feel free to use it too — especially when the ASX isn’t doing much to enforce standards in the small-cap space.

At the end of the day, I want Neurizon to succeed — like every shareholder here. But that means demanding transparency, discipline, and performance, not applauding plane tickets and PowerPoint slides.

This one is personal.

My Labrador, Bella, was diagnosed with B cell lymphoma. Being a shareholder of Neurizon Therapeutics’ I knew about the canine lymphoma trial. I enrolled her — not just as a shareholder, but as someone hoping to make a difference.

To get her treated, I drove five hours each way to the closest participating site. I also led the push for a video to promote the trial so more people might benefit. Bella became part of that. I drove her over an hour for the shoot, despite her declining health. She passed away two days later.

Then came the change in management — and the trial was quietly shelved. This, after months of announcements claiming the company was in "advanced discussions with major pharma" partners. Nothing eventuated. No explanation. Just a strategic pivot, and that was it.

I'm not just a shareholder — I'm someone who lived the cost of that decision. And I imagine other dog owners who enrolled their pets in good faith feel the same. We believed in the science. We believed in what we were told.

Neurizon also had promising preclinical data in brain cancer, another area with desperate unmet need. That too has been abandoned — so the company can now focus solely on neurodegenerative disease.

Yes, I’m angry. But not irrationally. I’m angry because we were told a story, we contributed in good faith — and when the narrative changed, we were simply left behind.

This isn’t just about one dog. It’s about trust, communication, and respect for the people (and animals) who make clinical trials possible.

I’ll close by reaffirming what I’ve always wanted — for this program to succeed.

I sincerely hope that positive news is on the horizon, and that all the effort and belief from patients, families, and shareholders alike is honoured with real progress.

As always, my thoughts are with the six remaining patients still receiving NUZ-001. I hope the treatment gives them the chance to keep living their best life — because that’s what this was always about.