Hi Itsa, there are many different pathways and options that any...

Hi Itsa, there are many different pathways and options that any company can take.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but is less valuable in a Boardroom that is looking forwards, as they do.
We are known in the USA and EU, and our science is known by all relevant companies, we are not a nobody, we are simply a researcher and developer at this point.
We have representation on the largest DMD lobby group in the USA via Gil Price, representing ANP and DMD and DMD boys and families, and that lobby group networks with most of the biggest relevant pharma and regulators.
We have had our PIP accepted in the EU and that highlights us on radars we were already most likely on.
We have Voit on board, one of the more respected DMD specialists in the world, and he would also expose us to some of the most involved parties.
And we have Charmaine who is an experienced and credentialed person in the world of big pharma and its interactions.
(see below to refresh part of Charmaine's experience)
So I believe we are well known around the world in the circles that matter in regard to the treatment of boys with Duchenne.

Then there are investor, partner, takeover, and license-out aspects.
As usual, there are many different pathways, do we look for a partner early and sell a significant share of the future business, do we pull the belt in and try and remain autonomous, do we try to license a component or a country to provide valuable funding?
I think we have to consider ANP from the business perspective.
The Board will always try to have a vision to create shareholder wealth, and that is done by creating and or supplying goods or services.
Anyone buying into an R&D should have at least a basic knowledge of what that is and the risks involved.
It can be a Verrryyy slow journey, if a shareholder didn't know that on the entry they would know it now.
The share price is the most important aspect, usually, to the Corporates, such as the banks, Coles, and Wesfarmers, Telstra, etc and now too probably CSL as they are so big, but they all have a good or service that exists and is well established. So their focus is shareholder value. They have large consistent income.
(and I must say I am totally bewildered on here when I repeatedly see the phrase posted that they(ANP) are not paying dividends and how disappointed some posters are.LOL. How on earth anyone expects a dividend from a company that has zero products marketable and therefore zero income)
An R&D is out there to create and then prove and then sell a good or service, and the focus in a great many cases is to survive, to survive long enough to get to the stage where there is an approved product to sell.
And surviving is not a simple thing, so I personally appreciate that focus.
Share price is slightly less relevant at this point.
Is it best to try and move the share price of company ABC from 20 cents to 80 cents so trader like shareholders can sell out with a profit, but, with the attention not 100% on survival and success, the business goes broke?
Or is it better to have a company that jumps around that goes from 20 cents and ends up at 4 cents but is still alive, and moving forward?
And this is reality, have a look at the percentages of startups and Biotechs in R&D that get to market and those that go broke.
The figures are concerning for any company about to take that pathway. (You can do your own research but from memory one of the articles I have read suggest phase1 to FDA marketing approval as between 9 and 10%.
That means a lot less if you already have income,(such as to a corporation that already has 5 marketable products and is attempting to create a 6th ), it means everything if that is to be your 1st income and you end up as one of the 9 rather than one of the 1.
At the same time having a reasonable share price can be useful with credit raisings and option incomes.
So having an appreciating share price is always good, I suppose in part you want it to come naturally to the most part, spruiking without a sound product is a great way to be tarnished for a long time.
And I think in some ways ANP has been tarnished slightly over the years, in large part by the day trading that went on in it back 10 to 20 years ago, and also the unsuccessful licensing or product advancement.
But also to make things more complicated, many businesses wouldn't have survived those setbacks.
And you need some luck at times too, the discovery of the effect of CD49D on DMD aspects around 2015 was serendipitous for ANP in a large way.
That's not to say we wouldn't have found a way to deal with the Tox study and MS if DMD didn't appear, because we may have, but focus then went on to DMD due to the scientific indications discovered and the relationship to our oligonucleotide.
So, this is a long-winded way to suggest we have actually done well in surviving because on various levels we have survived the percentages on several occasions. And many CEOs have failed because it is NOT the primary goal of a Biotech R&D startup to make money straight away for traders and investors, it's to survive long enough to create a marketable product and then sell it and then worry a lot more about the share price.
And of course, back to the start, this can be a long and hard journey, very long and very hard, but most don't make it.
And for a trader, they may not care about any of this, they just want a profit, but for many investors, and particularly ethical investors, the goal is to survive, make a product to help people, and then to prosper from this outcome.
So we have a small but diverse group.
A CEO that has kept us alive, regardless of other criticisms.
He has also had to time the recruitment of staff and Board to coincide with stages, phases, developments, and finances.
We have in my opinion a CEO successful in doing his job, we have a Chairman(Chair) that is beautifully talented and experienced, we have two Directors, one a Science discovery and patents expert that by all accounts is doing a terrific job in house, and we have consultants out in the field who are top class. We have 2 non-exec Directors one of who is highly experienced previously at DMD world-leading pharma with clinical asset strategy etc and we also have another Director with decades of experience with Biotech commercialisation and development.
And I imagine Bob is still around if we need him.
How did we get this team, the CEO has had the job to structure and create most of this, when it was appropriate and affordable.
So, we have Gil in the USA, and from what I can tell if the next phases go positively in our development paths our team and structure will again continue to unfold.
It would not surprise me if he ended up the head of the N American ANP, but to get there we still need a product.
We do have some marketing going on in the USA and EU, maybe not what some here deem enough, but these are often the same people that once saw a photo of Diamond sharing a meal with some Asian people and now some here like to put forward that that is the extent of ANP selling itself.
You remember John Elliot could be seen eating a 4n20 pie with a Fosters,in the company of others, but that was just a photo, it means little, it's just a photo, a time snap, Elliot ran a multi-billion dollar company.
So, I think that we are known in pharma circles around the world, those pharma wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't know what was on the event horizons in relevant fields.
The only hindrance I see is that we have struggled with funding.
So yes, I also would think we might have done some things differently, again, hindsight makes us all very clever, but I am of the belief, and partly that requires some faith, that we will find all funding to progress to the end of the trial, which if successful I think will lead to marketability.
We must also take into account we are a big fish in the DMD bowl from over here in Oz, but in the US and elsewhere there are many companies researching DMD therapies and treatments, and many here couldn't name 5, so do their shareholders jump up and down because they aren't better known yet.
The timeframes of some in Hotcopper are way out of wack.
We have to wait months for the next turn in the cog, and after a couple of days with a depreciating share price, people are having panic attacks and crying for blood.
And unfortunately, there is about a handful to a dozen on here that are easily swayed or led.
Two or three people with an agenda stir the pot and within the day those 5 to 10 people are back on board, and it's interesting to watch that one minute they are happy, and then after a post from someone not of the company, not in the industry and not fully informed, they are then in an angry mob like mood, yet nothing actually changed except someone stirred them up. Human nature, can be strange and something to ponder.
Anyway, yes I would love a big USA and EU headquarters with ads on American streaming TV, and I would love Bloomberg doing an expose on us, I would like it all.
But, I also realise the realities that we are under a financial burden to supply a product to be tested in clinical trials while paying everyone involved and hoping the results are positive, for all of us, and most important the DMD boys and their families, our wealth creation stories, at least for me are secondary.
And at this point, we still own 100% minus some small single-figure royalties, which are nothing really, the day we are paying them is actually the day we should all be hoping for.
100%, that's pretty good.
I owned a company once called Oxiana, it had great potential, a lot of really good gold and copper assays, etc, there was really very little reason why its share price wasn't going anywhere. We all held and chatted and some asked why was the market cap still all so low, where were all the big buyers, and what was wrong with the company's management that the price wasn't rising as expected.
And then one day those assays were mined and Boom, the price took off and Ozminerals exploded out.
I see and hope for some similarities.

Charmaine.
Extensive experience as a pharmaceutical physician and enterprise leader with a proven track record of executive leadership competence, decision-making, and strategic thinking. As Chief Medical Officer for CSL Behring, had accountability for clinical research, medical safety, medical ethics, and patient matters for all development programs and on-market products, providing leadership in strategic product development, planning, and implementation across multiple therapeutic areas. Under my oversight of the clinical group, the company had an unprecedented run of five major product approvals and launches within a 24-month period.
I am passionate about advancing patient and community health outcomes through partnership in development, contributing to scientific progress through strategic innovation balanced with risk tolerance, and the development of talent, particularly women in Pharma.
Skilled in executive leadership, development strategy, negotiation, governance, and risk assessment. Known for strong business acumen, authenticity, professionalism, and collaboration.