Ann: No Serious Safety Issues Observed in First Cohort, page-14

Hi Lachie

You may be correct about that - I'm not sure. I certainly agree that Prof M is highly credible and so are the members of the Clinical Advisory Committee. Company Board and management looks genuine too - sincere and competent - so that ticks an essential box for me.

It all comes down to the science, and I'm not really qualified to analyse that in detail, but I can make reasonable sense of wider readings in the field.

This feels like when I bought into IMU when it had a market cap of just $30m or so. Absolutely disregarded by the market, because it was new science and regarded as unproven wth minimal chance of success. My only regret is not buying a whole lot more IMU than I did, when it was so very very cheap.

So what I'm saying is - I really like what I see with AGN, but it is definitely high risk/speculative.

Of course, if it wasn't, the market cap would be in the billions - because that's what a proven effective treatment for stroke or TBI etc would be worth.

I'm waiting for some funds to be freed up elsewhere. That is taking longer than I expected. While I wait, I'll keep reading and considering.

Either way though - I think AGN holders are in with a chance, and the potential is certainly eye watering.

Cheers

Dave