Good evening@ThePigWhen the Facts Don’t Fit the Narrative: A...

Good evening@ThePig

When the Facts Don’t Fit the Narrative: A Response to Your Comments on Neurizon.

You’ve raised a number of concerns about NUZ across HC and LinkedIn and sought to defend these in your post above.Many of these comments are framed as questions or expressions of frustration — and some are entirely reasonable. But others appear to lean heavily on selective presentation, emotional framing, or speculative logic that doesn’t align with the company’s disclosures or standard industry practice.

This response aims to walk through those issues carefully — not to shut down criticism, but to ensure the conversation is anchored to facts.

Executive Travel and ConferenceAttendance

On LinkedIn, you wrote:

“Four executives from Neurizon Therapeutics heading to the U.S. for abiotech conference — while the FDA has placed their IND on hold and a capitalraise seems inevitable. With shareholder funds under pressure, it’s worth asking: Does it really takefour people to attend one conference? Especially when the Managing Director wasso confident of FDA approval on first submission.Capital discipline matters — especially in biotech. ”

It’s fair to expect discipline around costs — especially in a small-cap biotech. But it’s also worth noting that attending the BIO International Convention is standard practice for companies at Neurizon’s stage. BIO is the world’s largest biotech partnering event. Neurizon’s focus on ALS — a rare and highly competitive indication — means that in-person engagement with prospective partners, researchers, and trial collaborators is a critical part of the company’s execution strategy. Dare I say it — based on previous market disclosures in relation to preclinical work underway — we may even see some transformative results being released.

The company's participation is entirely consistent with its stated intention to pursue partnerships, enhance its visibility in the neurodegenerative field, and support clinical readiness for NUZ-001. These priorities were outlined in company updates throughout 2023 and 2024 — including in the June 2023 investor webinar and the Q3 FY24 Activities Report (released 29 April 2024).¹

It may not always be obvious from the outside, but the logistics of BIO involve dozens of one-on-one meetings, often running in parallel and taking many years to bring to fruition. A multi-person delegation is typically required to ensure proper coverage. So while it’s reasonable to ask the question, the available facts suggest this was a commercially justified decision — not evidence of lax discipline.

I also note that your background and areas of expertise do not extend to conducting biotech commercial negotiations or engaging with potential commercial partners on what, I believe, will be a multi-billion dollar deal.To be blunt, I prefer the company’s judgement about who needs to attend these conferences over that of a minor shareholder who has zero experience in the field.

IND Hold and Speculative Framing

You also wrote:

“When the FDA placed the IND on clinical hold, the company immediatelycommenced trials to address issues — before even receiving written feedbackfrom the FDA. That raises a legitimate question: Did the company already knowwhat the FDA would object to? If so, was that information ignored in theinitial submission?”

These questions imply that management either knew the IND submission wasinsufficient, or acted prematurely to fix what they anticipated would beobjections. But based on the public record, Neurizon appears to have actedtransparently and promptly in response to the clinical hold.

In its 11 March 2024 announcement, Neurizon stated that the IND was placed onhold “pending further review of long-term toxicology data and certainpharmacological markers” and confirmed that it had initiated follow-upstudies to address these queries.²

In many cases, initiating confirmatory studies in anticipation of regulatorconcerns is good practice — not impropriety. It appears Neurizon was attemptingto mitigate delays by acting on probable review areas while awaiting formalfeedback. This isn’t unusual. In fact, it’s often viewed as a sign of aproactive clinical program.

Personally, as a former regulator in atotally different area of government operations, I’d be stunned if the FDA didwrite back to confirm the adequacy of the (then) proposed studies. While I can appreciate why they made the request of the FDA, waiting for a reply (which, it seems, has not yet arrived) that may well say “we can’t tell you that until we see that study data” risks wasting valuable time and money.

It’s valid for you to ask how the original IND could have been strengthened, but the suggestion that the company knew it was submitting something deficient — or that the FDA’s concerns were predictable and ignored — doesn’t align with what’s been disclosed.

Strategic Focus and the Shift fromCanine Oncology

You described your personal experience withNeurizon’s (then PharmAust’s) canine lymphoma program:

“Then came the change in management — and the trial was quietly shelved…We were told a story, we contributed in good faith — and when the narrative changed, we were simply left behind.”

You also questioned the discontinuation of the company’s brain cancer research, suggesting that the current focus on neurodegenerative disease came at the cost of promising earlier programs.

I acknowledge that this perspective is deeply personal — and clearly heartfelt. But from a commercial and scientific standpoint, the company’s pivot toward neurodegeneration appears to have been deliberate, gradual, and well-justified.

As early as late 2022, PharmAust/Neurizon began indicating a strategic focus on ALS and related indications, citing more compelling preclinical data and the prospect of fast-track pathways and market exclusivity via orphan drug designations.³ This shift was reiterated through multiple updates — including the October 2023 AGM presentation and quarterly reports throughout FY24.

The rationale? ALS presents:
- A significantly larger unmet medical need,
- Stronger regulatory support (e.g. HEALEY ALS Platform Trial participation),
- And materially greater commercial upside than companion animal oncology.

There’s no question the decision had emotional consequences for people who participated in the earlier veterinary program. But it doesn’t appear to have been sudden, unannounced, or without foundation.

Public Commentary and LinkedIn

You wrote:

“Holding management accountable in public, where reputation matters, makesthem work harder. Companies love to use LinkedIn when it suits them.Shareholders should feel free to use it too — especially when the ASX isn’tdoing much to enforce standards in the small-cap space.”

You’re absolutely entitled to use public platforms — and in some cases, they dohelp elevate governance standards. But it’s also important to be precise.Unlike statutory reporting, platforms like LinkedIn don’t demand context,balance, or verification. That means posts that combine speculative framingwith emotive language can mislead — even if unintentionally.

When you suggest that a capital raise is “inevitable”, that conference travelis excessive, or that the company has abandoned stakeholders — withoutacknowledging the full context of ASX communications and public statements by the cmpany — it creates a perceptionof impropriety that doesn’t match the facts.A review of your LinkedIn and HC posts suggests you hold highly skeptical views towards a number of companies you are or have been invested in and have suggested or hinted at impropriety on numerous occasions – it could even be said that this is your default position or brand.

Final Observations

None of this is to say that Neurizon’s pathis guaranteed, or that shareholders shouldn’t ask difficult questions. But yourrecent posts tend to cast ambiguity as deception, pragmatism as betrayal, andstandard biotech operations as cause for alarm. That’s a pattern I encourageyou to reflect on.

Reasonable scrutiny is vital. But when commentary becomes performative —leaning on emotional resonance rather than factual grounding — it risksundermining its own legitimacy.

At the end of the day, we all want the same thing: for NUZ-001 to succeed, forpatients and families to benefit, and for the company to generate real andlasting value. To get there, the debate should stay tethered to evidence.

Cheers

Densy

References:

1. Neurizon Therapeutics – Q3 FY24Activities Report, ASX:NUZ, 29 April 2024
2. Neurizon Therapeutics – Announcement of IND Clinical Hold, ASX:NUZ, 11 March2024
3. PharmAust – Investor Presentation and Quarterly Activities Reports, Oct–Dec2022