Ann: Response to ASX aware letter, page-196

Thanks for taking the time. 

Apprecite your insights and will take some time to think them over rather give a flippant reply. 

I do have a couple of follow on questions, more so for clarification and do ensure I am understanding you.

1. The “showing” of clinical benefit in trial patients

-When (in your opinion/expertise of course) is typical for disclosure? - Clearly the ASX rules play a factor, but hyperthectically, if BIT where to possess something truely bonefide in terms of “evidence of cure” and it was safe guarded by parents, would we already know?

2. When you say the trial failed to show clinical benefit. 

-Is that your personal definition or categorically? I do trust your judgement/information however I ask because, well BIT are not behaving as it were a failure, and would likely spin it any other way until impossible to do so too. And in addition, in this particular trial (let alone generalising), I am unsure of what is typical.

3. In relation to what you mentioned about the protocols of progressing trial phases and the potential for requiring to repeat trials - What’s your take on on BIT’s posturing?

-If we take the focus away from the science and ambiguious language used in many BIT updates for he moment, and examine what is more comcrete/reliable 

information on we have to work with (still keeping our doubts in mind of course)....

What do you make of...

A)Whether true or false, BIT have announced they are seeking/exploring commercialations partners.

B) MM bought in to whatever it is she is saddling.

C) The availability of any data that is caterogically negative (rather than just ambiguous) and or at least with certainty, dimishes BITs credibility. Is there any? / do you know of any? You point about the failed phase two trial stands out for me, but it hasn’t been portrayed like that to at all until our discussion. I appreciate that as something seriously worth looking into. 

As I mentioned before I am novice investor. I do however back myself I’m strategy analysis in both human behavor and business behaviour.

My quick and well, instictive feelings is that BIT’s behaviour / postur8’gnwould be very questionable at best and I wouldn’t know, but even illegal and worst? (Please correct me if I’m wrong)should BIT not have something in their pockets worth the self determined and self perpetuating, self promotion.

Or,

By at least they’re own standards and moralities, they genuinely believe they have something. And they are essteinally risking everything on it. My only doubt is

the possibility that “significant immological effect” (whether true or false) is a Hail Mary to partner up, while the business is good health, and with potential and then carry on hiding any backwards/sidewards steps (clinicilly) in amongst the swell all other other changes that may occur due to a new partnership. This is bold notion and only a thought, though. I believe BIT to be genuinez 

I’ll read thought all the other info you wrote and do my own researh. 

Nutler