I understand all the frustration. And the sunk capital.But I...

I understand all the frustration. And the sunk capital.

But I wanted to point out that there is still a major disconnect between those obvious and disappointing facts and the share price.

The share price of most biotechs and medtechs reflects a combination of sentiment and total addressable market. Not earnings or even cash burn.

This company is on track to earn 1 million this FY. Actual dollars, not biobucks.

Let's look at the GBA contract. If there's 100-200 patients in the treatment arm, that's approx 100-200x20k = 2-4 million in revenue for a single study. That's agreed, signed and committed by GBA. Not maybe. Definitely.

Then let's consider those two trials. In the face of a trial like TRIPP, which if positive will signal 1. further evidence the treatment works and 2. it will extent the approval to the commonest chemo and 3. push governments to reimburse, most companies' share prices would rise significantly leading up to the result release on the expectation that a positive result will drive sales (yes, like opthea). Not here apparently, although no explanation as to why we are exempt from that sentiment.

I can't argue with the reality of the share price, but I believe there's other factors involved because it makes no sense to me. Being small and listed makes it very open to manipulation. You can't short OSL, but with some very cheap buys and sells you can drive sentiment and price down.

Maybe they wanted to take the device and run it all the way as a stand alone company. Maybe the company has underestimated the fact is that it's always been too undercapitalised to run the introduction of such a significant new product on its own - that maybe it should have been sold long before this to a company with an established distribution, sales, reimbursement team.