WFL 0.00% 0.3¢ wellfully limited

Announcement, page-120

  1. 3,636 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 1021
    'If PG is funding some of the plans then obviously this money should show up in quarterly right ?'

    No. Read your question aloud a few times, and then have a good think whose quarterly the expense of funding the plans would show up in........that's right, it would be P&G's quarterly........as they are the one's funding it.



    'Bodyguard trial, conducted by Bill Vincenzo does not even mention double blinding. These boards at one point was filled with accolades and achievements of this individual and his conclusion on one of the other trials he did about tennis elbow was - do nothing !'

    As advised to Market, the BodyGuard Trial was always an Equivalence Trial against the World's NO1 NSAID product Volaten (Diclofenac) with an already TGA approved Natural Formulation; and they never claimed to be taking a drug molecule through 3 phase clinical trials or conducting any type of double-blinded trial........so not sure what your point is here. OBJ exceeded or met all of their set outcomes in the Equivalence Trial with a product that is natural and represents no long term usage issues against the World's No1 NSAID product.



    2006.JPG

    The trial Dr Bill Vincenzo conducted for Tennis Elbow was in 2006. As replied to you yesterday, any Published Peer-Reviewed material can be only considered 'out-dated' or 'no longer relevant' if it has since been disproved or 'superseded by further advancements'........and BodyGuard is a clear example of this scenario, along with all other Technology Platforms that have also been Independantly replicated by their collaborating partners; who also happen to be the World's best in Skin Care, Cosmetics, Pharmaceutical & VMS.



    'So is OBJ in the business of biotechnology or big data ?'

    Yes, no doubt that was a need as advertised on P&G's Connect+Develop site. The need is no longer advertised (so your information is again outdated), so it looks like progress has been made on that front.

    http://www.pgconnectdevelop.com/home/needs/other_innovations.html

    Why did P&G have that need in the first place? Perhaps you are right in your suspicion that it is to be used in conjunction with OBJ's e-Skin/BeautyConnect.



    'Then there has always been the talk of a substantial holder.'

    You seem to be confusing yourself again. OBJ made a 'Placement to Institutional & Sophisticated Investors' and the placement was 'oversubscribed with strong support from new Institutional & Sophisticated Investors'. No mention of a Substantial Holder. Unless a single entity was going to receive more than 80% of the total 109m shares on offer, then it was never going to happen. It is common knowledge that these new Institutions wanted more scrip, but OBJ simply would not provide it as it was not required by OBJ.

    http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20150924/pdf/431k2ppmtg8mx7.pdf

    Substantial Holder notices are only required when an entity holds more than a 5% interest in an ASX listed company. Nobody currently on OBJ's register holds more than 5% scrip as a single entity - not even the Directors.

    Further education on this topic can be gleaned in the below article which is current:

    http://download.asic.gov.au/media/1236706/rg5-published-20-december-2013.pdf



    'I see that OBJ boards have yet to respond to my previous questions about show me "Peer reviewed material published by personnel NOT associated with OBJ ?'

    You seem to be labouring the above point, so I will re-post yesterday's response which has since been conveniently moderated:

    'Nice rebuttal Alphadog........you took the words right out of my mouth.

    'In the scientific world . research that is 2 years old is generally considered outdated.'

    The above is clearly neutral's own opinion and can not be verified by any professional & respectable sources. Historically, Published Peer-Reviewed material can remain relevant for centuries if it has not been disproved or superseded by further advancements. Also, in most cases, Published Peer-Reviewed material is protected IP (Intellectual Property) via Patents and is generally replicated under the terms of an NDA (Non Discolsure Agreement) by participating Partner Collaborations.

    If you are still having issues with understanding exactly what a Published Peer-Reviewed article represents, the attached link may offer further insight:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474310/

    Not only have OBJ's Patented Technology Platforms been Peer-Reviewed & Published, they have also been Independently replicated by a US-based Contract Research Organisation twice, by the World's Largest FMCG P&G; To satisfy P&G’s technology adoption process - and this is part of the reason why P&G have recently committed to a further 5 year PDA extension and opened up their entire portfolio of Billion Dollar Brands to OBJ's Technology Platforms. This process has also been replicated & verified with Coty & GSK. Numerous other Global Corporations are currently vetting this process, although yet to be made public.
 
watchlist Created with Sketch. Add WFL (ASX) to my watchlist
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.