Ann: Second Quarter Results Presentation, page-45

If you find it ambiguous whether I am genuine why not give me the benefit of the doubt?

Isn't it a genuinely interesting to you question as to whether or not foreward looking statement
disclaimers would cover statements made on page 12 to the effect that there is a "validated potency assay"? Don't you as a market participant want to be able to tell to what extent you can take statements made as being true? Validated is past tense after all - to assert something is validated is not foreward looking - its not saying will be validated.

I'm inclined to think they the foreward looking statement disclaimer would cover it myself. So shareholders treating it as a statement of fact probably won't have legal redress if they are disappointed in such an interpretation, in my opinion.

But whether you do believe me or not I do have some concern that some folk might read what is probably a matter of MSB's opinion - that the potency assay is validated - as being a matter of fact.

The MAP algorithm stuff (another place where the word validated is used on page 12) does have several academic papers in the public domain behind it. But to my knowledge the FDA have never taken a public position of stating they do deem the MAP algorithm to be validated either. Nor do they have to. But I believe there is a process whereby such things can be registered with the FDA if the owners of the biomarkers want to register them. Or scientific consensus can be assumed by them (either the biomarker owner or the FDA). Because the validation papers that validate the MAP stuff are public domain - the experiment method employed to do the validating of the MAP is public domain. None of that applies in the case of the potency assay.