Screenshot(s) from Annual Report of 29 Aug 24, page-15

reg, I work one on one. With even one person that can stand up - I can stand up with support in a meeting or to put questions. What you posted and replied to was what I'd written to revolution - not to you - he not you in this case was the one talking about "relatively standard".

Its not relatively standard to cherry pick - that's not sampling properly. If matching the worst performing year of every biotech was to be the template for what is relatively standard flying into a mountain would be relatively standard for going up in a plane.

The only example revoluton offered from this year (the year cyp had that activated) was mesoblast.

Standard matters - standard of care. If something occurs rarely its not standard. It can be a warning.

CYP failed the MEND trial because standard of care wasn't standard enough.

MSB will in my opinion get another CRL (and probably take CYP down with it) because they didn't have in their study001 a clear enough association of the potency assay and nothing else with the outcome - good longevity - they obtained. They didn't have a proper testing standard.

Anything that happened to be potent in the cells from the two or three donors (and not measured by MSB) - besides the TNFR1 and IL2ralpha levels (that were measured) - could also have produced good longevity results. So for lack of testing standards - you guys (your board and management at MSB) are hail marying (with you featuring prominently in bay 13 of the cheering section).

Silviu is going to want the FDA to trust him with a less than gold standard potency assay.

Kilian is probably hoping for an MSB success because then he can keep using the same tired old comparisons with the conventional manufacturer - that so far hasn't manufactured a commercial product. Then at least MSB will be a conventional manufacturer if it can sell product - even if its sometimes not potent.

Standards reg.

Testing standard - not cherry picking to fortify a boast.