You've got mail, page-12

@room10, yourview is rather narrow.

“I'll start with the very first sentence. Ilumen is not a diagnostic aid and the author of the letter of all people, should know that.”

Granted how they have described Ilumen was rather short in its approach, I believe the letter was more focused on the incompetence of the current board rather than give shareholders information they already have.  

“Also, I would remind the author that she was very much a part of the executive team during the period of the"dramatic cash burn rate" and the dramatic decline in share price.Why in the name of God would we vote her, or anyone associated with her back in?”

I do not believe any shareholder would be comfortable sticking with the current board that spent $700,000.00 on ‘legal and other costs associated with the departures of former employees and contractors of the company’ (see the quarterly cashflow).  No doubt about the recent departures of Jack Cosentino and Peta Slocombe. I do not believe it costs $350,000.00 per employee to be relieved of their duties. That is just about 70% of MEB’s monthly cash burn. Amazing how loose the board gets when they require the ‘Dismissal’ of 2 employees with such limited funds.

“In addition, debt funding for predominantly a pre-revenue medical research company is never a good idea andthe author should know that too if she has aspirations of being a board member.”

Granted the details of the loan proposal were not very detailed, but with 2 large capital raisings under the company’s belt, subject to further detail, the loan proposal does not sound too bad (no shareholder wants to be diluted especially when the company is down 50%), particularly in the company’s current circumstances. If a cap raising did occur, who in their right mind would participate whilst there is a current 249d in the process and the boards expensive procedure to remove employees at $350,000 a pop!

“Regarding the departure of the previous chief executive, 6 people (Board members - regardless of who they are)were unanimous in the action that was taken.”

You cannot deny that the departure was very ambiguous in the circumstances. He ‘ceased’employment with the company in a very abrupt and unprofessional manner. All shareholders must be curious as to why the company made him ‘cease’ employment? Especially when it cost the shareholders $700,000.00 to dismiss Jack & Peta.