HF-MACE P3 [ PART 4 ], page-15

1) What I "want" in the interim analysis, is a robust signal that our technology IS making a positive difference in the majority of patients who've had.

2) My commonsense tells me however, what we MAY get - no-one yet knows - is what many PhIII trials kick-up, ie, a "mixed bag" response....I think [hope] we'll do better, ie, more like "1".....but even a "mixed bag" does not mean in any way "failure"! It simply means, we need to understand i) the data even more deeply and ii) how our technology may work with other treatment options and also what "nextgen" MSB cells can possibly achieve. Obviously, if over the next decade we bring forward cells double or triple the potency of our current technology, better results are possible.

Look at our diabetes program, it was originally geared to T2D....but likely will, in due course, target both T2D [metabolic] and T1D [autoimmune], that's a technology progression.

Having typed all that, I'm not even sure our interim analysis is geared toward telling us much of this depth of information. If it's robust and we should expect it to be, well and good, if it's more "mixed"......I have faith the Prof and his team, who are very experienced in such things, will be able to determine the best path forward.

The BIG advantage of MSB is it's a platform technology and we have multiple shots-on-goal! And THAT'S what you want in the biotech space.......above all else!