Ann: Investor Presentation, page-175

The focus was and still is proving the process, however, instead of one P1 trial as originally intended (One trial to rule/proof them all), they (CYP) now surprise surprise have to generate more clinical data. Not because of GvHD (a small indication in the scheme of things - patient wise, cell wise and revenue wise), but GvHD is the furthest advanced indication of all of them (disregarding OA since we didn't have data in a P1 trial plus the trial duration being 2 years follow-up vs short readouts in GvHD being 28 days).
Your statement is still false, as the focus is not to bring GvHD to market alone like MSB. Cynata will still partner but given that time and money has been spent to get this far, might as well wait until after P2 trial data of some sort to outline potential clinical benefits. The business plan however had to be adjusted and therefore GvHD after FF's exit as licensee was in pole position to pursue.
There is no need to take up a level of falseness with anyone, as it is all there in the threads, comments and ASX announcements for anyone to read. Taken out of context, sure, I could take up any position, make up any statement, including RM being the first man on the moon. Then again, we all know that no one has been to the moon and it was all a conspirancy anyway.

FF did not walk away slowly and again, there is plenty out there including interviews, Twitter posted by FF itself. Looking at their presentations ans acquisitions, it tells you everything you need to know about their business model. It was very inconvenient for Cynata since FF being the first licensee was paraded as proof that the cells work. Now that FF is no longer there, it is celebrated that FF is still a partner that supplies the starting material. Well, if someone willing to provide a product that they get paid royalties for, get paid a fee for manufacturing and supplying the end product in exchange for a fee, not sure I would call that a homerun. Rather a normal business transaction.

JB's post deserve more attention in my opinion. No politicing needed either, just a reminder to read the statements and resources provided, rather than judging and attacking the poster because the statement presented is "inconvenient", challenging to follow and more often than not difficult to disprove. Had I followed my own advice a few years back, it would have saved me a lot of money or I could have made a lot of money. Hindsight 20/20.