Ann: Multiple Patients Dosed in Topical Phase I/II Clinical Trial, page-88

Thanks for the clarification. I must say I can understand the confusion as I took your comments initially to indicate you were aware of some legal action in process.

"at least they are not being dragged through the courts like chemeq were"

"Really, are you sure about that?"

that was how I read the conversation and couldn't interpret it any other way.
I know you have mentioned many times your concerns about what the company chooses not to announce. I still don't see that as being much different to other biotechs? Really the whole area is a lot of trials and experiments with "potential" whipped up by glossy announcements and spin. The only common factor for many is cash burn rate and the fact they make no income. Half of the fun in investing is trying to figure which companies are kidding themselves or us investors and which are genuinely onto something.

Certainly I've still got plenty of questions about if this is the real thing or not. I'm absolutely certain they would have killed a few lab animals during dosing and toxicity level finding unfortunately but is that something unusual?
If anyone was aware that maybe they have given emergency access to the product to a human and negative results ensued then that is a concern and something I would think they would be obliged to report. I have asked the question previously of the company and been told any details on emergency access would be announced to asx. If that is correct it is a little surprising that Neet$ revealed they thought the product had been supplied some time ago, yet it appears no mention was made in announcements. I can only assume there was no negative effect which would have surely warranted reporting. Most likely no effect whatsoever so they chose not to announce that? Which is maybe the type of thing you suggest?

That being said I really don't know what the rules are around emergency access. I read in some instances they are not even guaranteed to get feedback or data, it is just an agreement to legally supply in emergency. That being said surely if there was a serious negative effect they would be obliged to reveal that. That seems to be the risk of giving access to an unapproved drug?