Where Knowledge Base Author stands on some Cel-Sci Corporation issues.

(Issues listed in no particular order, author's opinions in Blue.)

1. Does Multikine have serious, credible potential to get to product stage?
Yes, I am betting that there is a high likelihood Phase III will commence at some point. Assuming a positive trial outcome, I do believe there is at least a good chance this compound gets to product stage; however, the exact developmental timetables remain unknown.

2. Has the research taken too long?
Not in an informed enough position to know for certain, but it seems there have been delays which have not been fully addressed by management to my satisfaction. It has certainly taken longer to develop than anyone, including the company's directors, ever expected. Whatever management can share about the reasons for the delays and long time frames would go a long way to filling in shareholder understanding and trust. Wherever possible, Management can better help the public understand the processes involved, obstacles overcome, etc.

3. Are management good communicators?
Generally, this area has improved over the years. At the very least, this management's style may invite speculation, volatility, insecurity, and too often perhaps unwarranted suspicion. There is a critical need for a better venue by which shareholders may make inquiries.

4. Has management used this company as their own private piggy bank?
Whether unavoidable or not, there is at least the appearance this has occurred too often through the financing deals. True or not, negative impressions are inevitably created by repeated, image-insensitive insider sales. How much impact this negative impression has is anyone's guess. In its extreme, management commitment may be questioned, self-interested decision-making or even common greed is understandably suspected. Management should be more aware and concerned about even the possibility of this negative public impression.

5. Has management done an adequate job informing shareholders of research and other company developments?
In my opinion, more could have been said in the past. Company could do more to encourage feedback. For example, they offer no venue for such beyond an IR phone number. This is clearly under standards set by sector peers. This year and last (2004-5) they have done a better job to amplify the company's mission with Webcasts, interviews, and peer reviewed publication. More of the same needs to happen to effectively expand the interest base.

6. Has management done an adequate job informing shareholders of evolving policy and strategy shifts?
No. Shareholders have been kept in the dark too often regarding company strategy and priority of goals. This degree of non-disclosure (by my layman's guess) seems unjustified by issues of confidentiality and protection of company interests. In the past, policy shifts have been abrupt, inadequately explained, ambiguous in message, unclear in purpose. On the positive side, over the past two years there has been a notable improvement in this effort by management.

7. Should management be given much credit for surviving this long, keeping the research going, etc.?
I would like to give them credit for this two decade survival, and I could if I knew more about why it has taken this long to get to current stage.

8. Are you satisfied with CVM's explanations regarding tabling for now the HGP-30W vaccine project?
No, very dissatisfied and perhaps somewhat puzzled with the inability of company to forge financial/research alliances that would allow vaccine research to continue uninterrupted. I see this as a major failure for the company, although no longer relevant to today's goals. Ditto for their overtures to South Africa, although they get credited for at least trying in that direction. The entire effort was short-circuited without the requisite explanations to shareholders.

9. Do you think the posts on the Yahoo board affect the stock price, short or long-term?
That is an unknown variable, but considering the average volume of the stock, I do not believe the impact is very significant at all. I seriously doubt that the Yahoo board is actually a material factor in the stock's short or long-term activity. However, boards always will influence certain individuals, pro and con. I do think the board can be a very good place to increase interest in the research.

10. Are the top execs overpaid?
Yes, I believe their compensation is and has been too high, given the status of company, and financial position tenuously uncertain beyond the last financing deal. Recent policy of stock in leu of salary is a welcome re-assessment by the BOD, but this should have been implemented years ago, and must definitely be continued.

11. Do you think the financing deals have hurt shareholders?
Yes, definitely, and the financing arrangements have been too much of the mystery. Impact not clearly known, but again, there is at least the appearence that the lenders have over-profited at the expense of price stability and investor confidence. One perspective says this is the best financing this high-risk company could attract. An opposing view says the financing deals have facilitated the management's "self-financing". I simply do not have enough facts to make an accurate and therefore fair judgement.

12.  Is there confidence to be gotten from the fact the company has maintained and expanded excellent institutional research collaboration in the academic and gov't sectors?
Yes, without a doubt the strongest point the company has going for it all these years. The professional affiliations are outstanding, involving in some cases top scientists in their fields, employing highly reputable research institutions and facilities.

13. Does it concern you that in two decades, there is very little institutional ownership of shares, very little scientific publication on record, no high-profile analysts following company, no interest from biotech sectors, very little exposure via any media?
Yes, all of these factors of visibility concern me a great deal. Recently, new institutional interest has been encouraging, while more is needed for a broader base of support. Additional peer-reviewed publication will be the determining factor to increasing interest.

14. Have the public relations firms hired been effective in raising awareness, increasing exposure, facilitating legitimate attention?
I don't know for sure, but I do know that positive, published research data is the most effective publicity. Generally, there is still a great deal of room for improvement in the public relations/communications area.

15. Does CVM need to improve its public image?
Without question, this is in my opinion CVM's biggest dilemma. They have been around too long to still be this invisible.

16. Does company CEO seem to have a positive, appropriate regard for shareholder interest, questions, and concerns?
I believe now that the company and CEO have made efforts to improve this very important relationship with shareholders. However, much more can and should be done to gain more shareholder input and trust.

17.  Do you feel management has ever done anything unethical or illegal?
No. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this has ever occurred, although the company has been a target for mischief on several occasions. As always happens with public companies, some may feel they have been deceived- especially when unsuccessfully anticipating stock price movement. All I can say is, guessing is what everyone does, all the time. IMO, this management has never tricked anyone, and to believe so perhaps only confirms a total misunderstanding of the investment, the science, the game, and the wager. I have posted my opinions on my web site, and they also include some honest doubts about the company's operating style. It is not only possible to have doubts about a company and still be invested, it is usually the case, because seldom, if ever, can someone feel 100% about a bet. At least that's how I feel about it, about this bet. I like it, more than ever in fact, but I don't forget that negatives exist. It goes with the bio research sector's territory, where a company's continued existence is often tenuously realized from year to year, project to project, looking for ways to both survive and somehow move forward. I personally do not think that Kersten intentionally or unintentionally deceived any shareholder, ever, to my knowledge. But some do believe that based on their interpretation of events. And I don't read the PRs as being deceptive, but others may. I have often been critical of press releases not saying enough, and I have argued this with management also. It is just a matter of opinion. Management, I believe, often feels that saying less is less apt to confuse the public, and my view has always been that the public is smart enough to understand a lot more than the company may assume. But I actually think CVM's information machine has improved over the past few years, with more being disclosed, but there is room for more improvement. I have complained about no (publicly accessible) IR email address available to shareholders. I assume Geert would rather talk to people on-on-one, instead of risk misinterpretation through email, which has its limitations and legal concerns. I would encourage the company to take the lead in educating the public about its research more actively, and there are a few simple, inexpensive ways to broaden the public's awareness, like by offering much more scientific background material on their web site, for example, or periodically coordinating prominently promoted science seminars highlighting their research products. Those who continually claim, with no real proof whatsover, that management "duped" shareholders are typically unlucky, emotional investors who are looking for reasons to blame for their ill-timed trading losses. Tempered to satisfy SEC disclosure guidelines, companies outline their reasonable expectations, that's all; and the investor must evaluate their likelihood for success. I don't think management has knowingly stated unreachable or unrealistic goals, but that is arguably a gray area no one can illuminate with any certainty. With no guarantees of outcomes and time frames, the bet is very high risk. These are all well-known aspects of the company's story. Pick any company at random, public or private, and you will find someone who holds the opinion that management is not to be trusted. But facts are something else. Facts and opinions are simply not the same. IMO, as an investor I need to make that distinction, and separate my own opinions from the facts, constantly assessing and re-assessing both accordingly. No one else is responsible for that evaluation process, it is my responsibility alone. In addition to general statements of anticipated progress by management, the always unpredictable timing of buying, holding, and selling is typically driven by both internal-developmental and indirect-external factors like stock price history, current market and industry trends- and sometimes inexplicable luck. In other words, ALL realistic factors must be considered, along with fingers being crossed for good measure, before execution of some type of trade. There are never any guarentees of success. In the absence of proven fraud or misrepresentation, these trading and timing decisions are the sole responsibility of the investor. Those who attempt trading without filtering all company statements through the lenses of experience, common sense and the company's requisite disclaimers, often end up with a skewed view of their own investment. Decisions based on skewed company views very often have negative outcomes. A missed deadline is not a "lie". A delayed development or decision or outcome is not evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. It is simply the reality of uncertain timetables involved with scientific research. It is the roller coaster reality of precariously funded small public companies in extremely volatile sectors like immunotherapy and cancer. Scientists and managers understand this fact completely by hands-on experience, as do experienced investors who truly understand the risks involved. Honest investors cannot agree that it is a crap shoot, and then complain or cry fraud when their trading expectations go wrong. Everyone says they understand an investment's risks, but many actually dismiss or minimize the disclaimer statements that are repeated for every investor to remember and re-consider. High risk means just that. Finally, I take the disclaimers very seriously and verbatim, as I would acknowledge the stated rules of any wager.

18. Do you think this stock has been or is currently being manipulated?
It remains an on-going concern and possibility. But I have no hard information to substantiate or disprove the concern.
.
19.  Are you buying these shares currently?
Yes, I have maintained both trading and long-term positions, accumulating and taking profits as appropriate. I feel the company is a very good potential value, depending upon Multikine's ultimate destiny in its long, slow quest to marketability. CEL-SCI is a HIGH-RISK investment. This fact cannot be over stressed. The company's disclaimers should be seriously and literally considered. As a trading stock, this issue has provided numerous profitable opportunities over the years. The stock is definitely for GAMBLERS ONLY!

20.  Do you feel the scientists associated with CVM have credibility?
Yes. I believe CVM's research-affiliated scientists are a distinguished and capable team of serious, dedicated visionaries who are working hard to make medical history in the fields of cancer, infectious diseases and immunotherapy. .