Ann: Updated Investor Presentation, page-12

I don't trust any of them. But that's just me.

Actually, that's not just you.

I don't trust CYP or MSB either (meaning management and the boards). CYP to stay out of the seed capital or set fair KPIs and be measured against those - MSB to brief the market evenly.

In both cases sufficient rational shareholder involvement should help (should produce better management) - but in neither is there much basis for confidence as in both cases the shareholders seem to prefer hanging separately rather than together to get better management.

I've never seen madamswer post on the CYP forum that I can recall but I think that poster's attitude to MSB would be a wise attitude to take to all stocks that claim to have a platform (so to the likes of CYP and to the former Exopharm) - the smart move is to wait until they show they can achieve positive revenue - simply don't believe bs about something being a platform.

When they are selling the future they are probably stealing the present and thinking Ross got a house where is my house.

Wait until the alleged platform is demonstrated to be something that can support some weight.


With respect to CYP - I believe the iPSC yamanka patent expires in Japan in 2026 - that expiry is likely to be before we have any commercial product.

Now the hemangioblast patent - how MSCs come from iPSCs is separate to the Yamanka patent for the production of iPSCs with four factors - but what if WARF took its license back for non performance and then made it publicly available so that anyone, anywhere (Japan first because Yamanka becomes free there first) could go from iPSCs right through to MSCs.

They don't have to have Kilian or Ross or their limits or their networks or their capacity to raise funds and do deals being a bottleneck in that scenario. WARF might get better public relations and appreciation and indeed medical results out of taking their license back and making it freely available so that the best innovators wherever they (I don't think Kilian is the best, I don't think Ross was the best possible) and developers rather than the incumbents can have a crack at actually doing something genuinely useful with it.

Something like showing that iPSCs to MSCs to 3D (so cheaper medicines - less handling) (instead of 2D) can be done.

Currently the regulatory paradigm is that the method of manufacturing matters ie the process is the product - so CYP has only gone with 2D processes - so any future partner has to wear risks of porting to 3D and getting trial results from 2D processes counted towards a commercial product somehow.

Put all the IP needed for getting IPSCs to MSCs into the public domain and the limits of Kilian and the like are not the problem anymore. Research groups at universities or anywhere could get cracking on producing MSCs from iPSCS and using them on 3D platforms.

That might be a better medical outcome for the world sooner and WARF might get better PR bang for its buck that way. And in terms of what produces the best medical outcome for more people sooner it might be the more right thing to do.

I didn't ever buy shares in a biotech to give someone a cheap housing loan or someone some easy KPIs they measured for themselves.

If commercial for profit does things faster and gets the incentive better then great do that - but what if it doesn't? A human embryo can grow up and vote in the time it takes for a 20 year patent to expire. A generation can get old a die. What if the commercial for profit model just sees a bunch of middle men take the value for themselves and slow things down so the medicines actually take longer and are more expensive to come out?