These alone need to be answered prior to AGM so send em off as...

These alone need to be answered prior to AGM so send em off as it is too easy to be brushed off at AGM by procedure. Added a couple of bits - sorry mobile so can't format etc .

1. Referring to the Investor Update that was released to the market in November 2016 specifically and all other updates and presentations to industry and shareholders,

• when the Company stated that VF had "Proven potency and safety" what was the proof that they relied up? What lab studies were done by current scientific team to prove prior data?
• on what basis did the Company believe its lead program (VF-001 in venous leg ulcers) was a "de-risked lead program"?
• on what basis did the Company maintain that VF healed 3 times faster than clinical or community care? Which patient subgroup ( age?) did this apply to? If not all groups why was study design large enough or done in 2 subgroups to ensure enough patients in each subgroup? Did they consider any change in "standard of care" compared to prior study and if so what factors and change did they compare?.
• 
  
• on what basis did the Company believe VF was a "derisked product with demonstrated efficacy"?
• when the Company made these statements did the Company believe VF had proven potency and safety and it was a de-risked product with demonstrated efficacy?
• Was it reasonable for investors to rely on these statements?
• Did the Company indicate in this Investor Update that there was a risk that VF would perform no better than standard care? If so, where?

In regards to eyes - same questions as there were no updates on progress and yet we had expenses etc. What positive response indicated the continuation of the program ? What data validated continuation of program?