Apologies for incorporating a reply to you to a post from...

Apologies for incorporating a reply to you to a post from @otherperspective.

You are correct, my believe that MSB will gain approval this time around is based on hope/wishful thinking perhaps. I have read your posts amd re-read them after CRL#2 and I can't fault them, I agree with your logic (not that I could understand everything). However, based on the comments and after 2 CRLs, making statements to the public and potential as well as existing customers including the most recent articles (if incorrect, Itescu could ask for a correction if he has been misquoted, as these comments are there for everyone to read and paint a picture of approval basically sorted), that leaves a lot of room for ambulance chasers - this time even more so than prior to CRL#1. I also think that a CEO surely knows that it is time to step back after hitting the same brick wall head first three times. For that reason I believe that despite the points you have raised, the FDA and MSB are about to meet halfway.

Your points about a meeting in March and positive feedback received shortly before the 27th March ASX announcement would coincide with the SP movements that occured just before the announcement:



I am however not chasing anyones rabbits. I am simply tired of the bating posts. Whilst I was (and still am) trying to be more moderate with my replies, I will keep challenging the biased posts.

Holding shares in one company and posting on another, that alone doesn't make a person biased. If there is logic to the argument, backed up with facts and consistency in posting, it shouldn't matter what shares you hold. If you make a researched point (even if incorrect), you should have the right to discuss it without being attacked for holding shares in the other company, instead of being told that your points cannot be considered because your are not wearing the right team colours. I have read the abuse you copped for making in my opinion valid points, your replies suddenly were minimized to an incorrect spelling of Kurtzberg, an incorrect title or a first name like Dr Joanne, when this has not been a problem before (including their own posts) in the eyes of said posters - or has been a problem since then anymore for that matter. That made me reconsider my approach on here, which is why I tried to scale back a bit, be more critical of my own views on opposing opinions (if warranted) as well as my investment and management in charge thereof. Whilst I don't believe there was much more I could have done as a shareholder in the past (voting "no" at AGM's when I disagreed, supporting shareholder initiatives such as @mcnamm 's, which led the company to respond in a disrespectful and petty way, sharing my opinion directly with the people in charge at CYP on multiple occasions and different noise levels), perhaps, I should have been more critical on here as well, rather than behind closed doors and with the company directly.

For now, I am OK with how KK has been doing it. There are visible changes in shareholder communications including updates on recruitment numbers, presentations also appear to be more regular (no Kohler incidence just yet, also no CapRaise clinical data update to sophisticated investors and wannabe ahead of the existing shareholder base) etc. I do note however, that the cheap option business and murky KPIs are still happening, although I have come to realise that this is common practice (sadly) and as such can't fault him for that. As long as he can get us back on track, we will all profit from it and if that's the case, I don't mind them reaping their extra rewards in the form of cashless exercise of in the money options.

2024 and 2025 could finally be the years of a turnaround. I have held shares since 2015 and I am still red, despite my purchases at lower levels, but there is plenty on the table here to make us all happy with our investment.

BTW, if you consider yourself being biased towards (?) CYP, show me one post where that bias is showing. Just one, I dare you haha