Ann: Notice of General Meeting/Proxy Form , page-31

Its a pleasure to have to think about difficult decisions but you must question why would I spend the time given that I have a small investment (probably nano is more appropriate)

In a range of options I still believe that the product will survive - I believe that if INT gets to break-even it will start making money. I also believe that each month it survives it gets closer to that goal as more of these contracts become live. I also believe that how long it takes to get there is the defining issue about what the ultimate sp or EV will be.

The risks are that IF the major shareholder feels that the minorities are taking less risk and that the company can be better managed out of the limelight then they make an offer and hopes to get over 90% and enforce the rest out. Or they approach a few of the larger shareholders and carry them off into the new venture in order to get to the 90%. However in all likelihood they would first want to know what the cost of the conflicts will be before they embark upon this and a rights issue at 0.1c is as good a place as any to start as it tells you a few very pertinent factors - Will the ex director who owns 100million follow his rights - if he does that says he is still interested but if he doesn't the dilution makes his holding less relevant. You also get to know what is the net cash position and after you settle you know what the liabilities actually are and how many smaller shareholders still believe.

Then there is the risk of all first adopters - they pioneer and someone comes along and improves and as its not burdened by debt of pioneering and having to sell the concept and the past costs of doing all of this it can move faster and make inroads. Right now how many potential customers must be wondering if INT will survive to deliver what they promise will be a profit centre in their business.

The person who can give us insight and who we all trust has been silenced as he is on the inside. We like that but it has the added problem that he cannot talk to us as he has in the past. There is also the question of who was the second investor who also put their hands in their pocket the name does not enlighten you as to who it is behind it -it has a google address in the same town as the major shareholder. It states that they are unconnected but probably you could draw a conclusion that by now they know each other I suppose. HTX has an article also about securing funding much like INT. You decide. Is HTX successful again you decide - what it does tell you is that the major investor plays the long game very well I suppose. Interesting there is a shareholder and new MD in HTX which could logically have the same initials as the company who co funded this.

Strange as well HTX also now has a link to La Jolla since December 2011. What i also dont get is how La Jolla and their behaviour does not seem to worry the major shareholder.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-business/healthlinx-secures-3m-from-copulus-20090325-99od.html

All in all I have done a lot of research and I still believe in the product and that someone will make the concept work - what I cannot get right in my head is that if I bought into INT I would be part of the success in the future.

Its one of worst and most frustrating decisions I have come to I like it but I cannot logically make a case for investing in it.

Only $50 which is probably a lot less than I would charge for the research. Probably the best statement at the end of my research is NO VIEW based upon insufficient information.