I stated in my previous post, I wrote IR to find out more about the IR and their reaction to the recent stem cell discoveries.

The info gave me a better understanding of Pluristem's technology - I hope you guys also find it helpful!

With regard to the reverse stock split, the Company is well aware of historical trends, the importance such issues as significant trends, etc.  However, Regulation Fair Disclosure prevents me from telling anyone about planned future events if they are material in nature.

Regarding your question about the Malcom Ritter article, I communicated with Dr. Prather about it and he was well aware of the article and its implications.  His response to your question follows.

Respectfully,

Craig

From Bill Prather

We at Pluristem are overjoyed when this kind of information attracts the public's attention. Although irrelevant to what we are doing, we believe it keeps telling people that the stem cell industry is cutting edge and products coming from this industry will be the wave of the future. I indicated it was irrelevant to us because this article illustrates research on cells that are autologous (i.e. from the patient) and any products that would eventually come from this technology would first involve having to harvest cells from the patient with the eventual product being a personalized prescription for that patient. Pluristem, on the other hand, deals with off-the-shelf allogeneic (other than from the patient) products that we believe will be much more widely accepted. Certainly, we believe big Pharma will eventually enter this industry and, when they do, we believe they will want off-the-shelf, one-size-fits-all products like ours.