... so sorry, page-12

FHC,

If there's one area where I agree with AF it's that Prana is a bit too quick off the mark when it comes to self promotion. Proof first, promotion later would be a good idea.

For instance, the investment roadshow got everything hyped up and the SP chugging along nicely, but right now it looks like a bit of a bad joke. I've held longer than that so it didn't affect me, but I wonder how many investors dived in because of it. I think the company jumped the gun and there will be quite a few small investors out there who got sucked in because of the roadshow and have now been burned quite badly. Remember, they will have bought in at a high price as well.

How many people here topped up because of the roadshow, or because of the 'validation' announcement, or because of an interview with Rudy Tanzi, or because of his tweets? The science didn't need the roadshow, it was all about money and it's worth remembering that the PBT crew get paid a hell of a lot not just to manage the science, but also to serve their shareholders' best interests. Can anyone who topped up at a high price tell me how the roadshow served their best interests and why it was a good idea to hold it then rather than after the results were out? It's also a question I'd love to hear the PBT management answer.

They got a bit ahead of themselves, strayed too far into celebrity science and rolled their towels out ready for some sunbathing before they'd checked the weather.

The reason I poke a bit of gentle fun at Rudy Tanzi is because he does seem to enjoy the limelight and if things had worked out then it would still be a bit of fun. However, in the wake of this SP carnage it doesn't look like a lot of fun at all and they have probably let a lot of shareholders down - not with the results (that's just the way science is) - but with the way they've conducted themselves over the last few months.

Before anyone jumps up and down and says I'm just bitter because I lost money. Actually, I sold some and kept some and I've been fortunate that my losses are next to nothing so I'm not all riled up about it. I just can't escape the conclusion that they've managed this very poorly.

I listened to the conference call and, frankly, it's a shambles. They overplayed the safety, left precious little time for questions, sidestepped one about cognition, and left the impression that after a week or so trawling the results they could come up with precious little to be happy about. A few weeks back an interview with Rudy Tanzi had him suggesting that the FDA might need to take a leap of faith for a drug that could reduce amyloid deposits and improve cognition. In the conference call it was all about how amyloid reduction was not really a good biomarker for AD - a spectacular U-turn by anyone's standards.

Cheers - a hopeful pessimist

dyor