Sheik, you say that Michael Monsour can't be blamed for the...

Sheik, you say that Michael Monsour can't be blamed for the previous Board's actions as he was only one of nine Directors and a non-executive. This is true to a point, but Monsour supported the previous regime led by Jones to the bitter end when one would have thought that he, as the equal largest shareholder in CBio, would have had the sense to see that reform was not only essential but well overdue. He should have tapped Jones on the shoulder, rather than fighting for the status quo.

While no one is defending Helen Cameron's unwise decision to sell half of her CBio shares last month, your allegations of insider trading have no substance. Read CBio's ASX announcements of 19 and 21 December which make it clear that Ms Cameron placed the order to sell her shares on 13 December, two days before she read the email from Novo Nordisk. You whinge that you couldn't sell your shares because Ms Cameron did, but this is nonsense. Any shareholder, including you, could have taken the same decision to sell at that time.

You say that the previous Board was not responsibile for any scientific decisions which led to the recent Phase IIa RA trial failing to reach its primary endpoint. But three of the five scientists who were directors on the previous CBIo Board (Dr Goran Ando, Dr Peter Corr and Professor John Funder) were appointed in October 2007 before the Phase IIa trial began in May 2008 and so they must have had a big say in the design of the trial and the preparations for it.

You say that drug development takes time, but a Phase IIa trial in RA should not take three years. One suspects that mistakes were made and corners were cut because of lack of funding. Why did CBio jump straight from a successful IV pilot study to a large Phase IIa subcutaneous trial without testing the new method of delivery with another small pilot study to ensure they had the right formulation? It is a fact that the company ran out of money half-way through the Phase IIa trial in April 2009 when the trial was suspended at the 74 patient mark because CBio had no more drug for new patients. Why? Because the company that made the drug would not produce any more for CBio until it was paid what it was owed.

The fact is that CBio had never completed a fully successful capital raising until the 16c rights issue in September 2010, managed by Baker Young, so for the first 9-and-a-half years of its operation, the company was always held back by lack of money and I would add misallocation of scarce funds to pay over-the-top executive salaries and unnecessary administration expenses. The buck for this poor capital management rests with the former Executive Chairman, Stephen Jones.

You obviously think that relationships formed between previous CBio Board members and executives at various pharmaceutical companies were important, but what actually matters is the science. If CBio had developed XToll to the point where its science had been validated by a fully successful Phase IIa trial, a licensing and royalty deal would have been done - irrespective of who sat on the Board.

If another pharmaceutical company likes the science as it stands now, or down the track after further development, then a deal will be done - regardless of the composition of CBio's Board.

Your supposition that pharmaceutical companies would be unwilling to do a deal because they don't "trust the Board's ethics, commitment and determination to see it to completion" is nonsense. If a pharmaceutical company were to license XToll, it almost certainly would take over the project lock, stock and barrel and move it in-house.

So the partnering pharmaceutical company would not be risking "millions of dollars on the [CBio] Board", it would be risking its money on the drug.

I remind you that our three directors, Dr Ralph Craven, Mr Warren Brown and Ms Cameron, were overwhelmingly elected by 108 million votes to 38 million - 74% of all cast. The only valid criticism you have of anyone on this Board is of Ms Cameron because of her error of judgment in selling half of her CBio holding while she was interim managing director. There was no insider trading. Please move on and stop bagging out these three directors. Give them time to do their job and turn the company around.

One would think there will be some key announcements from CBio regarding appointments of new directors to the Board and a permanent new CEO in the next month or two.

Then if the new management goes on a roadshow to communicate CBio’s strategy to shareholders, financial institutions and stockbrokers, hopefully the stock price will start to recover.

By the way, The Weekend Australian last Saturday did NOT rate Analytica as the "No. 1 investment for 2012", as you claim.

Analytica simply was listed first out of five stocks in alphabetical order in the section Baby Bluechips which happened to be the first segment in an article listing the Top 100 Investment ideas for 2012 - in no particular order.