By:  gdvmarch
 
 

INTRODUCTION
 

Enzo's half-hour presentation at 3:30 PM on 10/2/00 was one of approximately 64 made available in four separate rooms to institutional fund manager conferees that day in NYC's The Piere hotel on Fifth Avenue.  It was attended by around 200+ persons, including institutional fund managers, financial house executives, a number of Warburg people, assorted biotech analysts, and various invitees/attendees.  Like those of its pre-presenters, Millenium and HGSI, Enzo's talk was followed by a Breakout (Question) Session in a separate room off to the left of the Ballroom where the presentation (with overhead slides) was given by Enzo Biochem's President, Barry Weiner.  Its purpose was to familiarize attendees with a brief synopsis of Enzo and its endeavors and not to bestow  "stardom" on participants, Barry Weiner and Dr. Dean Engelhardt,Enzo's Senior Vice President. Dr.E later responded to questions at the Breakout Session.
 
 

An early morning company press release, plus a packet from Enzo of  its materials and UBS Warburg's preliminary (less than 6-page) report on Enzo was available to conferees, together with material from other companies and Warburg. It remains to be seen what institutional and other follow-through will occur, but various post-presentation comments by conferees seemed, IMO, to express great interest and astonishment. Such comments need to be separated from those of junior analyst-type persons who are impressed by companies throwing fortunes down the R&D gurgley [i.e., Aus. for drain].  These latter types do not, IMO, understand a basic tenet of life -- to wit, something's value has little to do with the amount of money that is thrown at it.  Barry Weiner's comments appeared to indicate that the quality of what one actually got for the pennies spent seemed of greater interest to the folks at Enzo.
 
 

CONTENT OF PROCEEDINGS
 

Enzo's Background and Work
 

Barry Weiner utilized the allotted half-hour to give a brief history of Enzo as a 1976 pioneer in the field of genomics whose singular approach to understanding genetic processes (i.e., focusing on DNA as an informational molecule instead of a manufacturing molecule as others did) allowed it to apply it to apply its technological knowledge in development of novel research tools, diagnostics and therapeutics, including, but not limited to, enabling technologies for detecting and identifying genes and modifying gene expression. Since then, Enzo has developed over 300 products for the biomedical, pharmaceutical and clinical research markets, including a new "gell" type identification/screening product which can be used in the physician's office:  It has also s amassed a formidable and worldwide leading intellectual property estate which includes approximately 200 granted patents and many more pending patent applications, both here and abroad.

.

Now Enzo is using its early learning in the genomics field to develop therapeutic products which concentrate on understanding the mechanism of disease at the gene level and identifying the most propitious points of intervention by which to regulate, repair, prevent and/or treat abnormal or unregulated gene expression or other disease resulting from gene defects and/or damage and/or the expression of foreign genes (e.g., those residing in viruses and pathogenic organisms).
 
 

B.W. reported on (1)  Enzo's important non-radioactive DNA labeling and detection systems products which are used to identify genes and gene sequences, etc., are inexpensive and  not hazardous to the researchers (as are other gene analysis methods that use costly and radioactive isotopes);  and (2)  its leadership position in developing and marketing (via supply agreements with a number of major corporate distributors) of reagents and kits that act like light bulbs to enable researchers to detect the presence of DNA and to understand, label, amplify, hybridize, format and to fix it to solid surfaces (such as micro-plates, micro-arrays, and micro-fluidic chips) for analysis.
 
 

 B.W. also spent some time describing Enzo's newly developed automated platform  designed to perform the gene-based tests it has developed for the clinical diagnostics market.  He emphasized the importance and future projected expansion of this particular part of the diagnostics market in which Enzo will apparently play a huge and profitable role as a result of its pioneering work and dominating technology.
 
 

B.W. indicated Enzo uses its proprietary technology in its own clinical laboratories, which are the third largest in New York State; are profitable; service and encompass the tri-state geographic region of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut; and provide physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, clinics and other clinical labs with more than 2,000 different routines and esoteric clinical lab tests or procedures - including chemistry, blood tests, cytology studies, tissue pathology, hormone studies and screening for cancer and infectious diseases and other undiagnosed conditions.
 
 

FWIW, it was my opinion that B.W. was indicating Enzo deemed its existing and future clinical diagnostics to be of worldwide expanding importance; that its products and their underlying patents were unique and far ahead of those of other entities; and that its reagents and kits would have to be used by others engaged in non-radioactive detection and analysis no matter who made their micro-arrays, chips, etc.  Enzo also indicated that it is likely to evolve into a leading and very large [and, hopefully, profitable] therapeutics company rather than remain as just a life sciences company.
 
 

Enzo Therapeutics,  Trials, Etc.
 
 

In addition, to identifying the structural division of Enzo, Barry Weiner spent some time on its therapeutic human trials, preclinical results, FDA and Israeli regulatory applications and progress.  He stated approval applications were filed to start Phase I human trials for Enzo's tolerization treatments for Hepatitis C ("HCV"), Crohn's disease

(bowel related), and  Graft versus Host Disease ("GvHD") which can occur in reaction to  transplants of foreign matter, etc.; and indicated in a forward-looking statement that such approvals of these new Phase I human trials might issue this year.
 
 

HGTV-43 Viral Vector and HIV/AIDS Issues
 

B.W. described the wonderful immuno-silent properties of Enzo's proprietary HGTV-43 stealth viral vector which was used in the Phase I human trials of HIV infection at UCSF, noting that this vector can efficiently and safely deliver genes right into a targeted cell -- so that the constructed genes made ex vivo (in a lab) from the patients own stem cells (i.e., the patient's white blood cell precursors) and antisense medicine - can then be re-infused to bind to and turn-off the activity of a specific gene (i.e., genetic antisense).  This vector transduces at rates significantly higher (30% to 80%) than those reported by other researchers.  It does so without expressing extraneous proteins that trigger an unwanted immune response (e.g., is immuno-silent) that can cause rejection, inflammation, etc.; and includes on its surface proteins that have an affinity for surface receptors of the cell types it intends to transduce.
 
 

Barry reiterated the news in Enzo's early morning press release concerning the success in its modified HIV Phase I human trial at UCSF of a biopsy taken from the first test patient  9-l/2 months after infusion.  The biopsy results from this first of six trial participants  showed  both the successful engraftment in the patient's bone marrow of the Enzo engineered cells and that they were spawning new differentiated CD4+ cells designed to fight the HIV by continuing to manufacture the required medicine needed by the cells.
 
 

In responding to questions, B.W. assured that this report was the first to be released from the initial participant treated in HIV Phase I (which was done on a staggered entry basis);  the reports on the other five participants would be released in due course as they became available; and that Enzo did not have any indication that successful engraftment had not occurred in the other five trial participants. Successful engraftment, as described above, is apparently important indicia of efficacy, although generally not required from Phase 1 results.
 
 

HIV/AIDS Phase II/III
 

Barry indicated work was progressing to complete submission of applications from all proposed host site participants and that he was hopeful FDA approval to commence the HIV/AIDS Phase II human trials would issue this year.  He also stated that Phase II would be expanded by participant numbers and would include patients with frank AIDS.  In responding to an inquiry, B.W. indicated he did not believe  (but did not exclude the possibility) the FDA would fast-track Enzo's HIV/AIDS therapeutic until Phase II human trials are completed.  It was not clear whether an application for fast-track status could be made while Phase II progressed.  IMO, it likely would not be as I believe the FDA requires completed Phase II data in order to make a fast-track determination.  However, B.W. and Dr. E made two points which could auger well and in Enzo's favor:  Firstly,  Enzo's Phase I, which is required to determine immediate safety issues, did that and, in addition, the successful engraftment results (if continued in the remaining five participants) clearly demonstrate efficacy of Enzo's HGTV-43 technology and genetic antisense medicine though not normally required in Phase I trials. Thus, in effect, the demonstration of safety and efficacy requirements for fast-track have already been demonstrated insofar as HIV patients are concerned.  They remain to be demonstrated in frank AIDS patients in Enzo's forthcoming Phase II/III human trials.
 
 

Secondly, the Breakout Question Session brought forth information that partial and full ablation will probably be attempted in an HIV/AIDS Phase III human trial (which could not be definitively ruled-out), but which may be structured and called an expanded-modified Phase II in which some 200 participants will be included.  Under these circumstances it may be that efficacy in certain frank AIDS patients can be demonstrated in the initial part of Phase II if it is expanded as a substitute for a Phase III.
 
 

As to the possibility of fully or partially ablating participants in HIV/AIDS Phase II/III, Dr.E advised that white blood cell precursors (stem cells) are retrievable from frank AIDS patients, so that information (i.e., degree of illness) is not yet available on the type, if any, of the HIV/AIDS patients (i.e., degree of illness) who would be most conducive to beneficial results from Enzo-type full or partial ablation.  [Not asked was a question as to whether radiation is necessary in the type of ablation procedure Enzo may use in certain unknown circumstances, given the facts that (1) Enzo is re-infusing the donor's own stem cells and not a synthetic or foreign transplant; and (2) generally, Enzo tries to avoid the cut, burn, poison (i.e., surgery, radiation, chemotherapy) method of medicine and prefers to encourage the gentler side of Mother Nature to take her natural course in effecting healing.]
 
 

B.W. and Dr.E confirmed that HIV Phase I did not treat any participants who were cross-infected with HBV (hepatitis B) or HCV (hepatitis C), but intimated it was possible one or more Phase II/III participants will be cross-infected individuals and may need genetic antisense and tolerization treatments.  Some conferees attending the post presentation Breakout  (question) Session were also advised Enzo continued to work on developing a  new and/or different viral vectors and other possible ways to infuse/treat HIV.  No questions were asked in public about a possible HIV vaccine.  A question prodded B.W. to also indicate that neither a joint venture nor a distribution arrangement was being  contemplated with regard to manufacturing and distribution of its HIV/AIDS therapeutic components and treatment would continue to be administered at hospital-clinic type facilities.  There was also an indirect indication during the Q&A session that the HIV genetic antisense may eventually go into trials abroad - perhaps at Hadassah.  No confirmation of concretized plans to do so was elicited from the Enzo folks.
 
 

Hepatitis B ("HBV") Tolerization Trials and Related Issues
 

While I agree with Larry's statement to the effect that Barry Weiner talked quite a bit about HBV during his half-hour presentation, I disagree with Larry's interpretation to the effect that all Phase I and/or Phase II data was released.  IMO, and from what I have reviewed on a tape of the conference, B.W. confined his comments to preliminary data previously released and concerning HBV Phase I at Hadassah - the obvious reasons for the constraint being the consequences of not observing the strictures imposed by the previously scheduled presentations and publications at the end of October AASLD conference in Dallas in which Enzo will present Hepatitis B-related information (in conjunction with its professional collaborators at Hadassah University in Israel and the Liver Unit at the Albert Einstein Medical Center in New York) at a plenary session, a parallel session and two poster sessions,  including complete Phase I data, possibly some Phase II data, suppression of human-type hepatocellular carcinoma (a/k/a "liver cancer" and "HCC") in mice with human liver cells, pre-tolerization/vaccine and related topics.  [NOTE: Violation of AASLD rules would, among other things, cause Enzo and its collaborators to forfeit this important professional exposure and publication opportunities and, perhaps, to also violate Israeli regulatory restrictions.]  B.W. and Dr.E confirmed that HBV Phase I did not include HIV/AIDS cross-infected patients, but under questioning intimated some may be included in the HBV Phase II human trials now in progress and, perhaps, to be expanded at Hadassah.
 
 

Barry Weiner did show an overhead HBV patient progress chart.  Contrary to Larry's (Vango888) conference report, it should be noted that the chart in question DID NOT illustrate data for 85% of the HBV Phase I trial patients tracked for 20 weeks with results averaged across the group.   The subject chart used by B.W. reported on ONE PATIENT ONLY and demonstrated in this one patient the effect and course of oral tolerization treatment for chronic HBV over the 20-week period of the program and illustrated the course of that particular patients Hep-B viral load and levels of immne response induced inflammation - especially during the first 10 weeks of the program.
 
 

The tape of the presentation indicated B.W. stated the chart reflected ONE PATIENT'S treatment; and a telephone call by me confirmed that fact.  [Comment:  Why is it important?  The chart showed a substantial spike-up of viral load, etc., a couple of weeks into treatment and a slow downward curve of that load and inflammation over the next several weeks before acceptable levels were registered and maintained.  However, these upward spikes and descending curves do not occur at the same points of time in the treated patients.  Some upward spiking has apparently been known to occur immediately, or 2 weeks out or even 5-8 weeks after initiation of treatment, with descending curves starting quickly or exceedingly slowly and the latter taking many weeks into the program before reaching acceptable levels.  I have discussed this issue with various doctors and it is the reason I previously posted an objection to the contention that HBV treatment periods would be reduced to some 3-4 weeks.  It just isn't so at this point in time.
 
 

Neither is Larry's report correct that oral tolerization for chronic HBV is to be reduced to 5 days.  I have again checked this point with the Company since the  UBS Warburg presentation.  The foregoing discussion re: viral loads and levels of immune response and other inflammation make obvious why such a contention is erroneous.  Moreover, any indication that HBV Phase II will explore dosage reductions in some cases should not be misinterpreted to yield the possibility of the 5-day, 3-week reduced treatment program.  IMO, it is more likely than not the case that the spiking of viral load and inflammation after patients ingest some of the oral tolerization proteins (i.e., every 3rd day during the 20-week program) may have something to do with the strength of each dose and the possible need for a different dosage strength where the patient is not cross-infected with HIV/AIDS or suffering from decompensated liver disease, severe cirrhosis and/or HCC.  A reduction in strength may reduce the level of the spike, but this effect will also have to be weighed against the possibility that too weak a dose means patient relapse or re-infection at a later time instead of post-infection pre-tolerization (e.g., type of vaccination) against such relapse or re-infection.]
 
 

As discussed below, IMO, dosing every 3rd day for 20-weeks and then termination of the medication - hopefully for all time - is a very, very mild and durable treatment given the very many months, years and even forever requirements of other currently available regimens of hepatitis B medication.  Durability of oral tolerization and treatment, prevention or relapse and re-infection are both requirements and huge selling points for Enzo and are not worth sacrificing for a shorter-term treatment program.  Indeed, such weakening and reduction may well set-off a medication resistance problem and start variant HBV mutant strains that currently plague patients on other existing Hep-B medications.
 
 

I cannot find any information from Enzo's presentation or Q&A to support Larry's mistaken contentions as to what the chart showed and/or the 5-day dosage and 3-week treatment alleged reductions and neither could I get confirmation from Enzo that it was so.  In fact, the opposite was indicated.   I think it may be dangerous and, perhaps, self-defeating for all of us to have any one sow seeds of such high but improbable expectations.  Let's walk first.  As experience with various degrees of chronic and non-chronic HBV and cross-infections accrues, there will then be time to look for the "new and improved" versions, if any can be developed.
 
 

What really counts right now, IMO, is that HBV Phase I appears thus far to have demonstrated Enzo has well and truly "licked" the chronic HBV with oral tolerization medicine that was, according to B.W. and Dr.E, indeed tolerated by both naïve (never treated) and previously treated (semi-effective and non-responsive) patients, for a minimum amount of money (e.g., in the range of $100-400) for the entire treatment; and that the treatment terminates in a defined 20-week period.  There just are no other medicines that can achieve anywhere near Enzo's results, even if future vaccination against relapse or re-infection does not occur (but, IMO, will).  Other available medicines (discussed below) are very costly, relatively ineffective, and not durable.
 
 

Availability, Etc., of  Other's Alternative HBV Drugs
 

I found important B.W. and Dr.E's frequent comparison of Enzo's oral tolerization regimen with other existing HBV medication costs, length of treatments, potential for mutation and build-up of medication resistance, side-effects, efficacy - or rather the predominant lack thereof - in different types of HBV patients.  Such a comparison is crucial to even estimating or determining Enzo's potential success and space in the huge international HBV market (e.g., more than 2-billion infected individuals worldwide).
 
 

B.W. and Dr.E felt that the effective levels of other drugs, in certain cases, may reach 15% -- with some sources placing effectiveness at 20%.  Larry - for good reason, such as the noise from the next room durin g the Breakout Session - mistakenly thought the figure given was 50% effective.  The tape I have indicates that B.W. and Dr.E said 15% not 50% and I have confirmed the 15% by telephone.
 
 

[COMMENT:  As some Enzo board members will recall, I recently posted information on data gleaned from the September 8-10, 2000 N.I.H. Hepatitis-B Workshop.  I will reprise some here and add to it to afford readers an opportunity to understand a little of B.W. and Dr.E's negativity with regard to existing drugs compared to the thus far proven safety, efficacy and possible potential of Enzo's therapeutic oral tolerization in the HBV arena.  I am not a scientist and, therefore, what I post is subject to correction by competently qualified individuals.  Neither may it be deemed a medical opinion nor medical advice in any shape or form.
 
 

That said, my notes on the aforesaid N.I.H. Hepatitis B Workshop (hereinafter referred to as "Workshop") indicate that the only two drugs approved by the FDA in this country are (1) Interferon-alpha (sometimes spelled "alfa"); and (2) Lamivudine, 3TC (sold as "Epivir"), both referred to by B.W. and Dr.E.  The nucleoside analogue called "Adefovir" which is sometimes talked about for HBV is still in trials.
 
 

Interferon-alpha (hereinafter "Interferon") was FDA approved some 10 years ago.

Lamivudine (hereinafter "Epivir" was FDA approved in 1998.  Effectiveness is around as stated above and by B.W. and Dr.E.  [NOTE:  Enzo's oral tolerization appears to be highly efficacious (perhaps 100%) all of the time, with no adverse side effects, in the non-HIV HBV Phase I participants at Hadassah.]   Interferon appears to require ongoing (perhaps daily) treatment.  Epivir seems to require lengthy and recurring treatment periods.
 
 

 Whether either is effective at all seems to depend on factors in different patients.  For example, Interferon (approved for treatment of chronic E antigen positive hepatitis B infection and given by subcutaneous injection) has side effects that include flu-like symptoms, fever, fatigue, malaise, depression, and lower white blood cell and platelet counts.  The Workshop presentations indicated Interferon therapy for patients with HBV decompensated liver disease is difficult because of the development of leukopenia and thrombocytopenia, serious infections and further worsening of liver disease,  In addition, the response of patients co-infected with HIV/HBV to Interferon has apparently been very disappointing because most do not respond, and the risk of adverse effects appears to be higher than those without HIV infection.  [Note:  Time will tell whether Enzo's HBV oral tolerization can (by itself or in conjunction with HGTV-43 genetic antisense) overcome effectiveness problems in cross-infected individuals.]
 
 

Epivir also appears to require long-term treatment and then it may have to be re-introduced on patient relapse or re-infection, provided HBV mutation has noot made the patient Epivir resistant.  On the plus side is the fact that Epivir is an oral therapy that can be effective in seroconversion of E antigen in chronic HBV patients with active inflammation.  It can also be used in HIV patients and is reported to have almost no side effects.  However, many patients on long-term Epivir treatment (i.e., 67% of patients after 4-years of Epivir therapy) develop YMMD mutant (variant) strain of HBV that is different in molecular structure to the wild type virus.  91% of HBV patients co-infected with HIV and treated for 4 years with Epivir developed YMDD mutations and drug resistance.
 
 

Both of the foregoing drugs will be discussed at the October AASLD Conference in Dallas.  In addition, there is likely to be conference discussion of the perceived need to develop a "HIV protease inhibitor-type" series of HBV-related drug cocktails to treat HBV - the feeling apparently being that resistance to therapy develops when only one or two drugs are used, but that three or more drugs may resist mutations and ineffectiveness of drugs for a longer period.  For example, experience with Epivir and Interferon has shown that while some degree of effectiveness exists with these drugs, neither monotherapy treatment is effective in all patients with HBV, and the patients are more likely to develop drug resistance.]  [I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the AASLD and watch the jaws gape open and shatter when the large pharmas., etc., get a good gander at Enzo's HBV stuff and potential and realize their own huge R&D past and planned HBV drug research and development budgets just went gurgley ]
 
 

Back to Enzo HBV Matters
 

Barry Weiner confirmed the Hadassah HBV Phase I and Phase II human trials are being run in a manner compliant with U.S. FDA requirements in addition to those imposed by Israeli regulatory.  There was also talk in the Q&A that HBV human trials may be expanded to other countries and even over here, but that the possibility exists FDA may approve distribution of Enzo's HBV oral tolerization for non-HIV/AIDS cross-infected HBV patients based primarily of the Israeli regulatory and trial data approval if issued.
 
 

B.W. suggested that available HBV Phase I results also indicate safety and efficacy - the latter demonstrated, among other things, by reduction of viral load, inflammation, and good tolerance of the medication.
 
 

Dr.E did not rule-out categorically that a HBV Phase III would not be required, but expressed the hope such may be the case in favor of structuring an expanded and/or modified Phase II at Hadassah.  He also hinted that that Phase II may include treatment of cross-infected HBV/HIV-AIDS persons, thereby perhaps intertwining use of Enzo's HGTV-43 HIV genetic antisense with its HBV oral tolerization medicine.  Details concerning what exactly the treatment for cross-infected individual would be, if any, was not touched upon - so my "intertwining" of  Enzo science and technologies is pure uninformed speculation.
 
 

B.W. responded to an inquiry re: timeline of completion of Hadassah HBV trials and possible commencement of manufacture-distribution of HBV oral tolerization product by a forward looking statement expressing the hope that the Hadassah HBV human trials could be completed in the next 9 to 12 months.  It was not clear whether Israeli regulatory approval could be obtained or given in that time frame.  Also, on the issue of Enzo corporate arrangements for manufacture and distribution of HBV tolerization medicine, if it is approved, B.W. noted that its largest market was abroad and not in the U.S.  He also indicated that discussions, etc., were being undertaken to explore various joint venture and direct and indirect non-exclusive contract arrangements with others concerning manufacture and distribution of the HBV product.
 
 

[My review of material, written and various conference presentations, makes me tend to believe (AND FERVENTLY HOPE) that Enzo will accomplish a clean-sweep, worldwide, of the HBV market.  In addition, because sexual conduct and intravenous illicit drug use play important roles in the spread of this infection, Enzo's oral tolerization medicine will probably become standard issue at STD clinics, rehab centers, prisons, and military hospitals throughout the world.  Also, if I am asked (which I won't be) where Enzo should set up manufacturing-distribution centers accessible to its main markets in China, Japan, other Asian-Pacific rim countries, Africa, etc., I will suggest Australia.  It has a stable history of democratic government and a common-law based legal and court system; is very much interested in promoting biotech R&D and pharmaceutical field; is a party to WTO and international intellectual property treatises; good transportation and ports; acceptable business, banking and currency translation systems; kangaroos with built in delivery pouches; and speaks a funny brand of English too.]
 
 

Miscellaneous Enzo Matters
 

B.W. responded to questions concerning analysts' projected earnings, explaining they were not his figures.  He also, gave estimates of the R&D budget allocation for next year, noting Enzo did not have any long-term debt and did not have a "burn" rate.  He once again explained that Enzo had not been to the market for money for approximately 20 years and that fact apparently had been a cause of lack of Wall Street interest in Enzo these many years.  An inquiry regarding whether a decision had been made to split Enzo's stock did not result in a "yes" answer but a well-constructed non-answer. There were a couple of those in the Q&A session and B.W. apologized suitably for same.
 
 

The applause at end of the presentation was enthusiastic and a few people commented to me their admiration for B.W. and Dr.E.  When the latter was reminded that with Enzo's HIV genetic antisense and its HBV tolerization treatments and huge markets he and other Enzo folks would be extremely wealthy, he countered (in effect) that he might like better the reward of knowing the benefits bestowed on the human race  is due to the fact THAT THEY BOTH WORK.
 
 

I will not go into Larry's commentary re: Enzo's alleged ability to demonstrate in vivo a whole body transducer, preferring to leave discussion thereof to a later date.
 
 

However, I will take strong exception to Larry's report that Enzo needs shareholder help with FDA matters re: approvals, etc., not to mention alleged help in getting the word out.

It just ain't so and any attempt by shareholders to interject themselves in the FDA or other political and regulatory process allegedly on Enzo's behalf will no doubt prove to be a big and dangerous mistake.  It is no use cloaking such an approach in a netting of concern for sick and dying HIV/AIDS, HBV victims, etc.  There are genuine stakeholder and other legal medical and political organizations and interests with far greater credibility and knowledge than shareholders who can only and rightly be perceived as being self-interested with obviously apparent conflicts of interest, including one that appears to advocate a disregard of public safety in the interests of promotion of stock values and personal enrichment.  Such interpretation of shareholder interference could back-fire drastically and cause all sorts of negative and harmful fall-out.  It is poor judgement to say the least and, IMO, unwarranted.
 
 

I hope the foregoing perspective is of help to some.  Please feel free to disagree.

Sorry for any typos and/or other error.

gdvmarch.