Yes you're right about the real world efficacy. In the case of...

Yes you're right about the real world efficacy.

In the case of the lenses, they found it was a protein in the normal eye fluid which seemed to impede the action of their furanone. This was a protein they did not encounter in the lab. "protein deposition on the lens may limit anti-bacterial activity"

In the case of oil and gas - I seen no reason why it won't work in the field as their last trials mimicked field conditions. So this still looks very promising.

As for "evaluate business priorities across the
product development alternatives" - I think this may mean that more development goes into oil and gas, as that is looking like the most promising commercialisation opportunity at this stage. I think it's important to kick off with something that brings in the cash. Therapeutics looks very promising but it's a matter of getting the company's fire lit.

As for lenses, well it's been ages since we've heard about them but I understand there was a hold up with the contact company due to possible takeover - but that should be resolved now you would think?

Anyway - all we need is one deal to go through, just one decent product would make the company at this market cap.

Re: staff turnover... there have been some resignations, I'm still looking at what I think this means. But we have had a newly appointed head of chemistry Dr Ironside who looks very good. I don't know if I should read into Michael leaving, he may have other reasons other than the company heading down the toilet.

I'm still evaluating. Dissappointed at progress, but not out just yet. We still have CIBA results coming in next months, Japan opportunities brought to you by restoration group, possibility of overcoming protein deposition problems, oil and gas development, and therapeutic potential given good results in animal lung tissue.