PAA Post AGM ,, 2022 Highlights, page-75

Just a few very general points from my perspective.

The umming doesn't worry me much, we're not talking like American style CEOs who have glitzy stock answers to everything and perfect hair. In fact a bit of umming can simply show the respondent is thinking about the answer which can be a good thing.

Also, the arbitrary RECIST bar was chosen for obvious reasons for the dog cancer trial but honestly what really matters is life expectancy and quality of life and other factors. These are what any company considering taking up the mpl treatment for dogs is going to be interested in and so I agree with Densy and others on this, in fact I had suspected this for quite a while.

While I'm pleased with the accelerated recruitment in the last month in the human MND trial after an incredibly slow start like others I'm concerned at the slowness of the dog trial. Still, the general thrust of the results coming in seems compelling.

One thing that personally annoys me with all these discussions is the focus on Elanco. Obviously this is unavoidable, but there are other big pharmas out there. And as far as I'm concerned the main game for now is getting a deal for the dog cancer use of mpl, and that this is really the stepping stone to human uses, so my attitude to any such deal would be rather pragmatic, To me the whole Covid thing was always a bit of moonshot, and betting the company on it was not a very wise idea as we've seen plenty of "remarkable results" elsewhere that ultimately disappointed, but that's just my opinion.

But what we need now is accelaration of the dog trial and a dog cancer partner asap as a stepping stone for future human uses and my attitude to that is the sooner, the better. The clock is ticking, time is short.