Hi Itsa,I’d like to respond to your attack on Sam’s “writing” on...

Hi Itsa,

I’d like to respond to your attack on Sam’s “writing” on his behalf in a (hopefully) non-inflammatory way and hopefully cut short the usual to-and-fro argument dynamic where you cast aspersions (often from misinterpretation imo) and Sam feels compelled to defend himself. I suspect he is caught between posting a response and not posting one for the sake of peace.

Albeit that Sam reposted a post from over 6 months ago to make the point that he felt then (and now) that the combo development was important, you have attacked him on an ancillary point where I believe you have misunderstood him.

Sam never said in the post (and has never claimed) that the CR at 24c was to fund the WHOLE original, EMA approved, pivotal trial. He was making the point that the intended use of funds from the CR Nov 2021 (that we all here know and that was clearly laid out in the CR presentation) was meant (and sold to Platinum) to GO TOWARDS FUNDING A PIVOTAL TRIAL as laid out then.

Everyone here knows (and he wouldn’t be so stupid to claim otherwise) that the structure of that trial funding and CR relied on 48c option exercise at futility to complete the other $37 mill (half of trial funding). A CR which later became flawed based on the initial funding entitlement shortfall (making it now $50 mill required), the subsequent sinking share price, and the realisation that $37 mill in future trial funding was resting on a “stop” or “keep going” announcement at futility with no revealing of unblinded data, to make the SP trade above 48c.

It would be easy to connect dots (and this is my opinion) that Platinum were also disgruntled 8 months after the trial when they chose to sell over a million shares around 12c after ANP came out of a trading halt on a Long Covid announcement. Platinum announced that they were now under the 5% threshold for reporting trades (and therefore able to sell further without having to report). Instos (imo) who hold majority shareholder, reportable, cornerstone investment stakes don’t often sell at 50% of their recent placement entry price if they are still happily in it for the long term. Anyway that’s just my opinion.

It wasn’t long after that we had a trial redesign to a P2b that was at the time, no guarantee (and still isn’t despite reassurances) of not requiring a further trial before regulatory approval.

Anyway, hope that may explain a misunderstanding that a lot of us here (I suspect) have seen.