In reality that’s not a far leap... I think it’s a fair comment...

In reality that’s not a far leap... I think it’s a fair comment to say given the information at hand - a natural next step.

on the surface of it developing a drug that is inferior but works in the same way seems pointless - if it works in a set of patients for whatever reason cannot or should not take the primary compound it would make sense to pursue its development for those cases regardless it works out side of the brain if it can be used in combination.

If you have a drug in hand that does both work in and out of the brain is well tolerated and offers 2/3 the patients benefit greater than the current treatments well you should outright call it Paxalisib as that’s the drug as described for GBM...

one must assume our compound is showing benefits across various use cases and it does sound like the preference unless you can show in combination that two or more other drugs offer a greater benefit... I think the key of in combination use is that for trials it’s no different than a new drug in that just because each is tolerated - in combination it’s a new beast until specifically confirmed safe... with mechanics the more working parts the more complexity the more break downs etc - elegance is the key and we have that.

These comments do look to a strengthening case for our drug going forward in multiple conditions in the way we have discussed and hoped for - for years.

it’s great to be at this exciting stage for Kazia.