Ann: Investor Presentation, page-452

You apply known (past) facts to unknown developments (where facts aren't yet established - bleeding edge!).

You have been right at times because the FDA has followed your conservative view or vice versa - you've both been on exactly the same page (I.e. Known facts first).

This is not quite right pledge. The past facts I'm integrating (potentially incompletely with respect to the patent and patent applications since 21 Nov 23 ) are very recent past - including the most recent ASX announcement 27 March 2024 by MSB and some of the stuff Silviu does when he puts stuff into the public domain by getting interviewed by reporters like Cameron England who quote him and also looking at slides he presented at Bell Potter. My point is its very recent past also that I look at - I don't flinch away from closely examining evidence that anyone not completely incredible puts up that would challenge my opinion.

But there is a more important sense in which this isn't right - neither I nor the FDA are so much conservative as rather it is on the applicant - in this case MSB to provide sufficient evidence of effectiveness.

The is a hurdle - at least one adequate and well controlled trial that must be cleared - usually the FDA wants more than than - by it can't accept less than that.

Because MSB has been claiming, I believe truthfully, that the product has changed since the early trials, those early trials can't be used as supporting evidence just as reasonably the failure in those doesn't count against MSB-GVHD001.

There still is a need for a validated potency assay - and trial MSB-GVHD001 is the only uncontaminated data showing that a even with a certain measured level of TNFR1 and even with over IL2Ralpha levels above 60% (or whatever) - there still isn't enough data to show that good results in terms of longevity seen, where clearly caused by those particular characteristic of the potency assay.

You rested you case - fair enough - you don't have to revisit if you do not wish to.

However MSB and Silviu are putting statements out in the media it seems that go beyond what they are including in their official ASX announcements.

Also I don't believe they informed the market about a granted patent - granted by the USPTO on 21 Nov 2023 at the time - in my opinion - I would have like to have been informed - it is relevant to TNFR1 levels - it does have a bearing in my opinion on a pathway I do believe is intimately involved in MSC potency. That MSB didn't inform the market isn't clearly a breach - in my opinion they could argue stuff that specific is not of general interest to the market so wouldn't reasonably be expected to impact the price. That maybe right.

What I am getting around to is this - you have seen me, on this forum, try to put together a set of questions to put to a board with the support of CYP shareholders that happened to be on the forum - I didn't work well. But it didn't totally crash and burn either as even though only pfeifer and I went ahead with our questions - they were actually answered.

I wonder if you would be interested in putting together some questions for Silviu and/or the MSB board and management in relation to market disclosure practices such as the recent sort of disclosures in The Australian and The Herald Sun - to me some of those statements where Silviu is quoted (by the reporter) would be believed by regular non expert readers. Also the patent granted - why no annoucement.

My thinking is questions seen to have been thoughtfully put together in a public forum, and then respectfully asked, are harder to dodge especially if they are not coming from a single person who can be treated with scorn and dismissed.