Note to the Board of BLT, page-5

Everyone is frustrated and p'd off, I'm sure. But how much of the situation is in PF's control and would a different strategy have really been better?

Calimmune is outside PF's control. We don't know how they are progressing, and being a private company they don't have to say. The HepC trial is in PF's control, sort of, but he can't do much about the failure to find test patients [the cause of this is extremely - I think stupidly - tight selection criteria] other than what he has done namely open up other avenues of finding test patients. He has, however, bolstered BLT's finances by issuing new shares at well over double the current share price. If he hadn't done that we really truly would be toast.

What I think is happening is this : After a brief spell of over-enthusiasm, the share price fell back to reasonable levels. When there was a delay to the patient selection the price fell again. All the people who bought in during the big price rise went underwater at some point and many have bailed out because of that. As they bail out, so the price falls further, and so more people bail out. But now we're well below the end-2013 price, the people that bought in back in 2H13 are bailing out. Looking at the 2-yr price graph my guess is that the price absent news will settle around 40c.

But the other thing that is happening is that the first test for safety has held up well. The search for the next patient continues at greater intensity and realistically should succeed. There is then no particular reason to suppose that the second test will succeed or fail, so the situation is the same as in the lead-up to the first trial but the odds are now better because of the first trial result. So if the price is no higher now (I haven't checked) BLT is even better value than before.

What about the strategy? From memory, three programs have been licensed out, and three retained in-house. The six programs cover all the big-ticket items. If there is no particular reason to suppose that a particular small-ticket item will do better, then it makes a lot of sense to address the big-ticket items first. It also makes a lot of sense to licence some programs out to different licencees and to keep some in-house (within financial capability). So I have no quibble with the general strategy. I'm sure that some details could have been done better, but overall I don't feel that your criticism of PF is justified.

It will be interesting to see how the price moves when the second patient is announced. Will it rocket, or has everyone who bailed out burned their fingers badly enough not to want a bar of it again? We shall see, I hope!