Ann: Half-year results release, page-24

I'm very confident that the trial of 'Patient 1' was successful, albeit the Safety component would have to be
otherwise, a material announcement stating otherwise would be required under the ASX continuous disclosure
rules, however, those same rules don't necessarily apply to the efficacy component as just the one or a few
patients' efficacy results are not considered as a fair sample of the efficacy of the tech.

Expectations can be tempered or gilded by sentiment, however, the tech has been forged in management guidance
to date and I don't believe (tech-wise) that they have released anything unsubstantiated.
The tech has already been proven to work in animals and the expectation is that it should therefore also work in
humans. Iron oxide nanoparticles used in humans is nothing new and it has been used successfully for several
treatments - A common use for nanoparticles is in the treatment of Anaemia.

So, we come back to Efficacy - The clinical trials will determine if the tech really works in humans and whether it
works better than say Gadolinium. We need to show that our SPIONs have greater efficacy than Gadolinium.
One massive advantage that our SPIONs have is that they have already been shown in a study done by the
The University of Sydney to be the best for Low Field MRI.

Of course, we don't know as yet (positive or negative) what has happened with the trial of the first patient (efficacy wise)
therefore, we cannot adorn unnecessarily the IBX tech already showing amazing potential but not quite proven up in
our human clinical trials just yet.

As always, I'm remaining very bullish on a successful outcome here.