Hi Cdoyle, there has been a tiny but vocal handful of people...

Hi Cdoyle, there has been a tiny but vocal handful of people criticising ANP management, basically forever, but more recently, so I think that when releasing an announcement about the first submitted application to a lead country is announced it is sensible to let people know that they are adjusting and cognisant of the world financial markets and this is being dynamically handled.
People on here ask for information, we can't complain when information is provided.

'As soon as possible' re starting trials, is 100% practical, there are numerous dynamics involved, many of which we have zero control over. We can want everything to work to projected timelines, but we don't control everything.
Sometimes you get a house built and it's completed within projected timeframes, sometimes timeframes blow out, often just due to situational circumstances. Being annoyed or upset changes nothing, these are the scenarios that can occur.
We all hope the house is built on time, but we do allow for the unexpected, plan for the worst, and hope for the best.
Same in R&D when you rely on an overbody which is the EMA and also the sovereign regulations and approvals and then you're dealing with expected costs but may have the reality of eventual inflated costings.
Probably a good idea to re-assess all finances and spending and viability.

Evaluating in parallel is never something to be displeased about, in my opinion, the more walking, chewing gum, and scratching their head a company can do at once, the better.
If you want more intricate breakdowns of evaluations you may need to speak to the company directly or have a seat on the Board, it is not practical to publically report all the workings and discussions and strategies on a micro or even macro level of everything that goes on, and I wouldn't want that done for various reasons. I think people would benefit from reading the disclosure requirements of the ASX.

In my opinion, we don't want to consider diluting the trials unless suggested by regulatory bodies, and they have already created their guidelines.
We pay them to manage our spending, we are not a part of that process, and 100 different ideas from 100 different shareholders isn't going to help, or be productive, we are not part of the chain except at AGMs, etc.

I noticed above someone commented about delaying a trial for prudent capital management.
I didn't read that in today's announcement, so that's difficult to respond to.

Cdoyle, I have had to rush this between commitments, sorry if it isn't written too well, and thank you for your civility