Truss20 – you replied to my post but didn’t engage with...

Truss20 – you replied to my post but didn’t engage with itscontent except to make a recommendation to seek financial advice. Perhaps your comment is well intended. But it could also be taken tobe gas-lighting to be suggesting without stating that I don’tunderstand what I’ve been reading when you or others do – but notrequiring any other reply on the substance of my sources orarguments.

This is an internetdiscussion site. I want to talk about the stock.

This is a link tothe Prospectus on Cynata’s own website.

https://www.cynata.com/cyp-asx-announcements

19 April 2023

SPP Booklet andOption Prospectus

8dd1e81ed7756eeedfe92a2ae25252f4.pdf

Anyone capable ofobtaining that document from Cynata's website (or the ASX) can see it has at least one contradiction init quite easily.

I don’t suggest that this is an important errorbut I do suggest that when work product like this is produced bythose who do either have financial advisors or are financial advisorspeople ought be permitted to discuss the contents Like they are not idiots that need to seek financial advisors to comprehend things for themselves.

Exhibit 1. Showspage 19 of 55 “This Prospectus is dated 19 April 2023”

Exhibit 2. Samedocument. Page 52 of 55. “Prospectus date means the date of thisprospectus, being 17 April 2023”






When I say something I can usually back it up if asked to by someone I regard as being in good faith themselves.

I'm sure I could find past examples of the company or its agents putting up illustrations of dilution that didn't actually make mathematical sense simply because they weren't checked thoroughly and the authors were on sort of auto-pilot.

Please do disagree with me if you do, please feel free not to comment if you don't want to comment and to ignore me. But please don't gas-light me with suggestions to seek advice to help me comprehend things.