Hi all,so I rocked up to the AGM, and as I'm new at these things...

Hi all,

so I rocked up to the AGM, and as I'm new at these things and don't have the depth of research that many of you guys have, I kept my mouth shut.

The transcript says it all, really but I hope I can contextualise a few things.

The safety aspect is a big thing. As one of the previous posters put it, TICK. This means that the process of testing 2256 against other disorders is relatively straightforward.

The TBI is a bit behind, as mentioned, but they've got good people on board to do the sports injury trials. So while in some ways the TBI is the "flagship application" it will be a while for all the hoops to be jumped through. So expect a slightly linger lead time, as laid out in the report. However they've been proactive in trying to accelerate this so I think they're doing all that is humanly densible in this regard. And at the moment they're still the only game in town.

the Rett's trials are probably more likely to have a short term result, maybe even by end of year we'll get an idea of the outcomes. This is because, while they're going through the standard double blind process, "each patient is their own control". This is the significance of the ann that we had on this a week or so ago. There will be anecdotal evidence very quickly showing whether the treatment works. SO the Rett's results will likely be the "first out of the blocks", and given the distressing symptoms of the condition, any treatment that alleviates these will be a Really Good Thing.

While it is obviously blue sky speculation to say so, there IS a possibility that 2256 may be relevant to other autism spectrum diseases of this type. Turning the sentence around the other way, it is NOT a stupid thing to suggest that this might be the case, it is well within the bounds of possibility and the Neuren team are aware of the possibilities.

And this is why the safety assessment is so important- it's much easier to get trials started if the treatment has already been shown to be safe.

The Perseis trials, while scientifically not perfect, are still very exciting. This should hit the ground running early next year at very low capital expenditure (100K or so). It looks like the common sense (but not scientifially rigorous) assessment of "if it showed some improvement, even against a flawed control, that's got to be good for something" is reasonable enough. Let's face it, given the flaw in the study, the trial could easily have ended up WORSE than the control.

And yes, there's blue sky on this as well, in that other forms of cancer may be open to treatment. Even though a highly speculative thing to say, once again it is NOT a stupid thing to suggest that this could happen.

So for me at any rate there are three really, really big opportunities here. I rank the Perseis stuff right up there with the TBI and Retts. And of course there are a bunch of other things lurking in the background.

In the meantime, the plan is to run "as lean and mean" as usual.

Look, bio is a risk. Larry and co could do everything right and it might just turn out that there's really no beneficial result and 2256 is just a squib. And note that for TBI and Retts there is a bit of a "shared risk" because it's suggested that the mechanisms for the two cases may by more similar than you'd think given their vastly different causes.

But really, I'm impressed and optimistic.