Michael Klugmann @MKlugmann

@OFFGEEKKIDD @landpalestine Yet….Notice the foreign language is in Hebrew not Arabic.

Fair point that patient #1 set an exceptionally high bar. But the newer cohort data complicates the "classic single-patient story" framing. The completed low-dose cohort showed statistically significant 57% and 65% reductions in HAEs/HACs, and 2 of 3 participants experienced no post-treatment HAEs/HACs. That sounds more like broader clinical activity than a simple failure to replicate. iecure.com/news/iecure-re…

#iECURE $DTIL 18 Month Clinical Update from 1st Pt Dosed in OTC-HOPE An In Vivo Liver-Directed AAV Gene Insertion Trial for Neonatal OTC Deficiency *Pre & post ECUR-506 HAC data across all dose cohorts to be presented at ASGCT 2026 iecure.com/news/eighteen-…

Sources to support above statement: 1. The Iraq War was authorized by the U.S., not by Israel Fact: The invasion required U.S. legal authorization and was approved domestically. Sources: •U.S. Congress — Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (2002) Passed House 296–133, Senate 77–23 congress.gov/bill/107th-con… •U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Report (2004) Found intelligence failures were internal to U.S. agencies intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/… •White House archives — Iraq War decision process under George W. Bush georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/ ✔ Supports: War decision was made by U.S. government institutions. ⸻ 2. Support for the war came primarily from U.S. officials, not Israel Sources documenting internal U.S. advocacy: •Frontline PBS — The Dark Side / Cheney and Iraq decision-making pbs.org/wgbh/frontline… •Council on Foreign Relations — Iraq War origins cfr.org/backgrounder/i… •Books widely cited by historians: •Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack (2004) •George Packer, The Assassins’ Gate (2005) These show policy push came from: •Dick Cheney •Donald Rumsfeld •Paul Wolfowitz ✔ Supports: Momentum came from U.S. national security leadership. ⸻ 3. Israel supported removing Saddam but was not the main driver Brookings Institution: Israel favored Saddam’s removal but was not a central actor in the U.S. decision. brookings.edu/articles/the-i… New York Times (2003): Israeli officials privately supported U.S. action but avoided public pressure. nytimes.com/2003/03/02/wor… Council on Foreign Relations: U.S. decision driven by U.S. strategy after 9/11. cfr.org/timeline/us-wa… ✔ Supports: Israel aligned strategically but did not control policy. ⸻ 4. Israeli intelligence warned the war could strengthen Iran / destabilize region This is the part many people miss. Haaretz (Israeli reporting, retrospective analysis): Israeli intelligence feared Iraq’s fall could increase Iranian influence. haaretz.com/2013-03-19/ty-… Foreign Affairs analysis: The war unintentionally strengthened Iran, which Israeli strategists later viewed as a major mistake. foreignaffairs.com/articles/middl… RAND Corporation: Regional destabilization after Iraq was widely predicted by analysts. rand.org/pubs/research_… ✔ Supports: Israel did not uniformly see the war as risk-free. ⸻ 5. Investigations found no evidence Israel manipulated U.S. intelligence Senate Intelligence Committee (2004 & 2006 reports) Intelligence failures were due to flawed U.S. assessments, not foreign manipulation. intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/… Robb–Silberman Commission (2005) No evidence of foreign control of U.S. intelligence conclusions. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GP… CIA review summaries WMD assessments were broadly believed across multiple countries, not just Israel. cia.gov/resources/repo… ✔ Supports: No proof Israel “drew the U.S. in”. Result: The claim that Israel used a tactic to draw the U.S. into the Iraq War is not supported by historical evidence. The decision to invade Iraq was made by the United States through its own political, intelligence, and strategic processes, although Israel, like many allies, believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat.

Claim to fact-check “This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war…” Underlying claim: Israel pushed or manipulated the U.S. into the 2003 Iraq War.” We’ll break this using the mathematical rebuttal model — isolate each logical step and test it. Key Logic Point 1 — Who actually decided to invade Iraq? Fact: The Iraq War was authorized by the U.S. government through the •2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) •Passed by the U.S. Congress •Signed by President George W. Bush Decision makers included: •Bush administration officials (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice) •U.S. intelligence assessments (CIA, DIA, etc.) •Congressional vote (both parties supported) ✔ Logical result: If the U.S. government debated, voted, and authorized the war internally, → then the claim that Israel “drew us in” as the primary cause is already weakened. Key Logic Point 2 — Was Israel officially pushing for the Iraq War? This is more nuanced. True: Some Israeli officials believed Saddam Hussein was a threat. •Saddam had fired missiles at Israel in 1991. •Iraq funded anti-Israel groups. •Israeli intelligence believed Iraq had WMD programs (same belief as U.S., UK, Germany, Russia, etc.) Also true: Israel was not the main public driver of the war. The strongest push came from inside the U.S.: •Dick Cheney •Donald Rumsfeld •Paul Wolfowitz •Neoconservative policy circles in Washington (American, not Israeli government) ✔ Logical result: Israel supported the removal of Saddam, but the policy momentum originated inside the U.S. national security establishment, not Israel. Key Logic Point 3 — Did Israel believe the war could destabilize the region? Yes — this is the part many people don’t realize. Some Israeli intelligence officials warned that: •Removing Saddam could empower Iran •Iraq’s collapse could destabilize the Middle East After the war, Israeli analysts widely acknowledged that: •Iran became stronger •Regional instability increased This aligns with what you remembered. ✔ Logical result: If Israel feared instability, → then the idea that Israel deliberately pushed the U.S. into a war to destabilize the region makes little strategic sense. Key Logic Point 4 — Why the “Israel dragged us into Iraq” narrative exists This narrative usually comes from combining three facts incorrectly: 1.Some pro-Israel U.S. policymakers supported the war 2.Israel disliked Saddam 3.The war turned out badly People then conclude: Therefore Israel caused the war But that is a logical fallacy (false causation). It ignores: •U.S. intelligence failures •Post-9/11 political climate •U.S. domestic decision-making •Congressional authorization ✔ Logical result: Correlation ≠ causation. Key Logic Point 5 — Was there evidence Israel manipulated the U.S.? No credible evidence shows: •Israel controlled the decision •Israel forced the U.S. to invade •Israel fabricated U.S. intelligence All major investigations (Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/11 era reviews, etc.) found: •Intelligence errors were largely internal to the U.S. •WMD assessments were widely believed internationally ✔ Logical result: The claim that Israel used a tactic to “draw us in” is not supported by documented evidence. Conclusion (Equation form) •U.S. authorized the war internally •Israel was not the primary decision-maker •Israel had mixed strategic views •No proof of manipulation •Intelligence failure was global, not Israeli-driven Result: The statement that Israel used a tactic to draw the U.S. into the Iraq War is largely inaccurate and oversimplified. Israel supported removing Saddam, but the war decision was made by the United States for its own strategic and political reasons. God bless America 🇺🇸

Update: @PrecisionBioSci has informed me that it will exclude my Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposal from the 2025 proxy statement on procedural grounds. The Company, through counsel, is relying on a narrow procedural basis to block a shareholder vote on a basic transparency measure, despite the ownership confirmation issue arising from the Company’s reverse split and CUSIP transition. It is disappointing to see the Company incur legal expense to pursue procedural exclusion rather than allowing a bona fide proposal to be decided by shareholders as Rule 14a-8 intends. The issue stems from proof of ownership following the reverse split and new CUSIP. Many shareholders who held $DTIL pre-split will recognize the problem: standard ownership confirmation letters often only reflect post-split CUSIP history unless a corrected confirmation is generated by the broker’s DTC back office. In my case, the DTC back office required close to two weeks to generate the corrected ownership letter (dated 1/8 and sent 1/9). Precision’s position is that because it was received two days after the cure deadline (1/7), the proposal is “untimely” and therefore excludable under Rule 14a-8. As a result, shareholders will not be permitted to vote this year on a proposal that simply asks whether the Company should hold quarterly business update calls with open Q&A, a common public-company practice. After years of extreme dilution, blocking a transparency vote on a technicality reflects a shareholder-unfriendly approach to governance. I believe the science is compelling, but good science alone does not make a successful public company. Governance and respect for shareholders matter. I am evaluating my position. If I continue to hold, I intend to resubmit in the next proxy cycle. Shareholders deserve transparency, not procedural gamesmanship.

For fellow $DTIL shareholders: A Rule 14a-8 proposal has been submitted requesting that Precision Biosciences Board of Directors adopt a policy to hold a quarterly business update call with each earnings release including (1/2)

Space has unlimited TAM? How? Are there going to be extraterrestrial customers? The total addressable market can only be as large as the TAM on Earth. While what Musk has accomplished is absolutely incredible, this is one of the most absurd concepts I’ve heard of. Let’s do a reality check: even Tesla, one of the most successful tech stories ever, is still far below the kind of trillion-dollar TAM being implied here. Can you explain to me the benefits of having a data center in space as opposed to in a mountain or even under the ocean? Sometimes Occam’s razor is an important philosophy. Obviously, Elon Musk is a brilliant person who has accomplished what many considered impossible. However, space still has the same TAM as Earth, since Earthlings would be the only consumers. SpaceX is an amazing company because of their existing capabilities. They don’t need to reach the moon to become a very valuable company, as they are already the most valuable private company in the world at $800 billion. Lastly, is the data center business the biggest business on planet Earth? Why would moving it to space suddenly make it the most valuable business? And what would be the opportunity here on planet Earth to profit from the data centers that are no longer needed? SpaceX has already accomplished what nations have been unable to. They have almost a guaranteed revenue stream from governments across the globe. However, this could all be for nothing if they spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to put a data center on the moon

@milo1234u I guess they just repackaged the data from ICIEM ce.nemours.org/content/hot-to…

#iECURE  Initial Findings from the First Four Neonates Enrolled in the OTC-HOPE Clinical Trial (using $DTIL #ARCUS tech)

@milo1234u They had all four patients 3 months ago? This was published from iECURE's 12/9/25 Hot Topics Neonatology 2025

Do you support the proposal (in the post above) for $DTIL to adopt a policy requiring a quarterly business update call and an open Q&A for shareholders?

(Con’t) prepared remarks, an open Q&A session for all $DTIL shareholders & analysts. This is standard practice across innovative biotech companies & strengthens transparency. When the proxy becomes available I urge shareholders to vote FOR the proposal. Attached is a copy (2/2)

@imf33linlucky @dheurofkshe To me, something to be a cautious about. If someone insists there’s new information but won’t consider they may have been too quick, that isn’t how a real sounding board works. You need people who can take pushback without turning it into an ego issue.

@imf33linlucky @dheurofkshe I appreciate anyone who shares thoughtful info I’ve been doing so since 2019 I’ve always tried to engage in good faith discussion. There was no new clinical data. I can make mistakes which is why I politely asked him to point out whatever I supposedly missed. Instead -blocked 1/2

@dheurofkshe Dec 9 reused the AASLD dataset: same cutoff, same 22 doses, same 9 efficacy pts, same biopsy. Only true addition was a safety-incidence table for N=10 which I mentioned. You’re the clinician; if there’s actual new clinical data you think I missed, by all means please point to it.

@TJK_RBLTG So upcoming inflection points won’t be walking into the same structural headwinds that historically crushed every rally. This will either become one of my greatest success stories or one of my biggest failures. I’m hoping and betting on the former a win for investors & pts GLTA.

@TJK_RBLTG Momentum was derailed a few times due to management decisions (notably dilution at unfortunate moments). But with funding secured through FY28, the major overhang is gone. That runway carries them through HBV Ph1 and the Ph1b expansion, as well as the first clinical steps of DMD