I, like most of the Australian shareholder base and the new US...

I, like most of the Australian shareholder base and the new US shareholder base, are somewhat shattered, somewhat devastated and somewhat stricken with that sick feeling that Biota seems to infect with us again and again and again.

I imagine Plumb is trying to paint a picture of the damage the BARDA drastic about-turn has inflicted, and the consequences. While this is likely to panic the share price even further, this may help with a better termination payment and some kind of future support fromm BARDA (given it is the purchaser for the US government and may have an emergency need for LANI in the future )

I can't imagine that all the senior personnel and decision makers at BARDA wll be happy to see LANI sit dormant, and not further developed.

In the case of pandemic, surely LANI is the best option in the near future with TAMIFLU resistance concerns and new generation drugs unproven.

Feels like that Tamiflu & LANI have been lumped together regarding H7N9 resistance. Can someone shed any further light on this? I was of the belief that the science had always indicated that RELENZA was a superior drug to Tamiflu, but the delivery was inferior. LANI was the evolution that was supposed to make TAMIFLU redundant. It seems BARDA are indicating that if TAMIFLU is redundant then so is LANI.

So there is no official BARDA written rationale, but it seems that BARDA have outlined that they talked to the comaany about concerns and addressed four things:

“During a recent review, we shared our concerns with the company,"

I am keen to understand how BARDA shared this information and how BIOTA management responded to this.

1)"including the number of people enrolled so far in Biota’s phase II clinical trials to evaluate laninamivir in adults during the recent influenza season;"

Okay, but is this just cause for termination given that BARDA's addtional requirement of 80mg doses was accommodated.

2) "the cost of additional clinical trials;"

surely pragmatic judgement can call for truncated future trials given the commercial success of LANI in Japan, and the fact that there is no mention of any safety concerns. This would save both unnecessary time & money / resources.

3) ":emergence of resistance to laninamivir in recent H7N9 virus strains;"

To me, emergence does not equate to evidence. Is there concrete evidence of this? Where is it?

4)"and feasibility of using laninamivir to treat critically ill, hospitalized patients with influenza,” Dr Robinson said

This is mentioned last so maybe there is less conviction behind this reason? I would very keen to understand specifically why LANI has feasibility problems with the very sick? Can anyone shed light on this.

I suspect personalities & politics are a big factor in the termination of the BARDA contract. Be great if anyone can share anything they may have on personalities at Biota, BARDA & other agencies that were involved in this grant.

I feel that if we can dig little, we can find out what on earth went on, and maybe positively influence the future outcome of Biota in some shape or form.

And Biota Management,please be transaperent and give shareholders a reason to trust that you are the right people at the helm at this difficult time.