"due to CYPs decision to do this OA trial in Australia,"I don't...

"due to CYPs decision to do this OA trial in Australia,"

I don't think it was CYPs decision to make as to whether or not to do the trial in Australia. From memory its the NHMRC or CRC that granted the money for research (and not to CYP but to David Hunter /Sydney Uni if I recall correctly) - Australian money (taxpayers) granted means an Australian trial would be done I presume. I doubt Australian money granted can be just taken to the US to do an FDA trial.

Could CYP go to the US independently? Theoretically sure - but they'd have to raise funds for that. CYP management have not sold themselves to investors as being in that business - they sold themselves to investors as being commercialisers - dealmakers.

I believe I read that the amount of the OA grant was around 1.3 million Aussie dollars or similar - grants are listed somewhere and I seem to recall reading that. I think that the amount that was granted (so CYP doesn't have to spend), which Ross has plugged as a plus (look I'm saving money), is about the same amount as he actually did spend on getting cells manufactured recently without deeming it material to even report that expense (pfeifer reported it here). If I'm wrong that the grant / saving which was reported (spruiked to shareholders and potentials) is not about the same size as the expense which wasn't (deemed material enough to mention) then I'm doing CYP management an injustice.

"CYP and all the CYP shareholders are all ‘experts’ on the FDA. "

I'm not an expert on the FDA. (I am a CYP shareholder). But I don't know if Stuart Roberts is (an expert on the FDA) either.

Going on a couple of recent FDA decisions - the GvHD decision (no when the panel vote was 8-2 for yes) and the Altzheimers decision (when the panel voted no but the FDA said yes) it is pretty difficult even for panelists advising the FDA to know what the FDA is going to do.