Response from CGB, page-31

Careful. He said "If you are genuinely concerned or have found something to show that management lied on their announcement then report it to the ASX immediately"

Not 'management lied on their announcement'.

Big distinction, especially when you omit part of the initial quote.

Out of curiosity, the website you linked.. are you relying on this because it does not mention BioHealth? If so, suggest you look at the date of publishing:



Not only is it not Australian hosted, it is very outdated. Over 6 years. Likely before BioHealth had TGA/GMP licensing recognition.

With regard to processing, the ODC stipulate the following for manufacture:

https://www.odc.gov.au/medicinal-cannabis-cultivation-and-production-licences-and-permits

(a) A license & permit from ODC - Medcan has the license. A conjunctive permit would be applied for.

(b) Appropriate permission from your state or territory - would be sought in conjunction with permit application.

(c) if intended for human use (in contrast to laboratory research), you probably also need a GMP licence from the TGA - Held by BioHealth.

I would therefore be of the opinion that prerequisites are satisfied to enable application for manufacturing permit to proceed. Would be a matter of ODC review (and the usual red tape).

Notwithstanding your previous posts noting the general manufacturing guidelines, there is provision for the same facility to be able to process medicinal & complementary items on a case by case basis. Don't discount the fact we are also not privy to the MoU specifics, specification of site etc. There may be dedicated equipment, zoned off site sectors etc within the same lot which may count as separate facilities under the same roof for ODC purposes (who knows how they view it, honestly - it's government). You don't arrange a MoU without addressing the capacity for each party to actually do what the MoU is based upon.

A fine tooth comb would have been passed through this release not only by CGB & the ASX, but BioHealth too. They would not approve the release of an announcement that has potential to diminish reputation as a manufacturer because they were unable to deliver on the statement made. PR 101..

It can be called confirmation bias or whatever other technical name people want to give my commentary here - but to question the very ability to action the MoU agreed to seems farfetched.. you wouldn't agree to it in the first place if it wasn't realistically achievable..

As has been pointed out - BioHealth are majority owned by an ASX company too so would be very wary of the importance of their releases. I'm of the opinion that there is big potential upside for them here too.. potential customer base once precedent is obtained that they are able to manufacture MM.

Turning the brain off for the night now.. checking in again soon! Happy researching