Ladies and gentlemen,
esteemed partners,

It is not true that Mr. Fabio Hüther is the CEO of Evodrop AG. It is true that Fabio Hüther is co-founder of Evodrop AG and Head of Research and Development.

It is incorrect that only six patent applications have been registered for Mr. Fabio Hüther, five of which were without a patent search. It is true that Evodrop AG or companies associated with Evodrop AG have been registered for a total of approx. 25 patent rights in 6 different patent families in Switzerland and abroad. The fact that proof of "novelty and inventive step" was not provided is misleading. It is a peculiarity of the Swiss patent system that such an examination of Swiss patent applications does not take place. The lack of patent examination is therefore not an indication of a lack of quality of the patent application on the part of Mr. Hüther. On the contrary, patent examination in countries where novelties and inventive step are also examined is successful.

It is incorrect that Evodrop AG is not known from magazines such as the Tages-Anzeiger or K-Tipp. It is true that certain reports were publicity reports, while other reports were published by magazines without the knowledge of Evodrop AG. It is also true that many Evodrop AG customers became aware of Evodrop AG through magazine articles.

It is incorrect that the references cited by Evodrop AG have no significant business relationship with Evodrop AG and that its trademark was misused by Evodrop AG. It is true that Evodrop AG supplied SBB with personalized bottles filled with Evodrop filtered water for its headquarters. It is also true that Evodrop AG was a finalist in Swiss Prime Site's "Accelerator Program" and has equipped several Swiss Prime Site properties with Evodrop decalcification devices. It is also true that Evodrop AG has equipped several apartments in the Mobimo Tower with Evodrop filter devices. It is therefore true that Evodrop AG maintains business relationships with the companies named on its website and that their trademarks have also appeared on its website with their knowledge and consent.

It is incorrect that Evodrop AG does not have a certificate from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is true that the relevant certifications have been made and that the original certification document is available on the website and at Evodrop AG.

The complete documentation can be made available to customers on request.

It is incorrect that Evodrop AG has made any changes to the FDA and ROHS certificates. It is true that the FDA and ROHS certifications are correct and original and that the corresponding certification tests have been carried out.

It is incorrect that the SGS validation is not an original. It is correct that the content of the validation was reproduced with the layout of Evodrop AG, whereby nothing was changed in the content or in the fact that the SGS validation was issued.

It is correct that the TOC value and the microbiology values were not shown in the laboratory report from the accredited Interlabor Belp. This is because the water was only tested with the membrane and not with the entire filter. In the Evodrop system there is an additional filter after the membranes which explicitly filters microorganisms. In the meantime, Evodrop AG has commissioned a new laboratory report from another Swiss laboratory in which the entire Evodrop system and not just the membranes are tested.

With regard to the pesticides found in the Belp Interlabor report, it should be noted that this value is only slightly higher because the water was contaminated with 10 times the permitted limit value and because the test procedure involved a closed water cycle. It should be noted that even under these test circumstances, all requirements of the Drinking Water Ordinance were met and the water could therefore have been used without any risk to health.

The original test reports from Interlabor Belp were an initial trial for both parties. Accordingly, no accredited procedural standard was consolidated, but rather acted in good faith. In principle, the test reports were to be received individually for each category and no subsumed constellation was to be issued. The microbiology was also already discussed at the time, that it was suboptimal because no disinfection and hygiene standards were used. In addition, the other parameters proved that the tested nanomembrane with a pore size of 0.5 nm has a lower permeability than all microorganisms.

After consultation with InterlaborBelp, the entire report can be published, including a cover sheet from Evodrop with a corresponding explanation.

It is incorrect that the targeted, sustained clustering of water molecules and their health benefits have not been proven. It is also incorrect that the lifetime of a hydrogen bond is typically in the range of 1 to 20 picoseconds and is therefore far too short to be transported to the consumer. It is true that there are various theories on this in science, but there are several studies that also prove the effectiveness of clustering and its benefits for health or the possibility of transporting the hydrogen bonds to the consumer. However, it is correct that proton transfer (hydrogen ion H+) through hydrogen bonds also plays a fundamental role in many physical, chemical and biological processes involving water nanoclusters. Some of these are described in the FAQ of EVODROP at EVOCharge.

It is true that Fabio Hüther was involved as a co-author in various studies on the clustering of water molecules and hydrogen bonds. It must be made clear that such studies are checked for accuracy by various scientists before publication and that these peer reviews have also taken place, otherwise these studies could not have been published in renowned journals. Fabio Hüther has scientific articles in the Scopus journal from levels Q1 to Q4 or entire levels. The conditions for the Scopus level of the journal in modern science are very strict, with more than 80% new text and figures, reviews by two or three independent reviewers and an editorial process with qualitative abstract, introduction, methods and results with figures, tables, analyses, mathematical calculations, dependencies, conclusion and references.

It is incorrect that Fabio Hüther's curriculum vitae has been adjusted. It is true that Fabio Hüther was treated for bone cancer when he was eight years old and had a 50:50 chance of survival. It is also true that Fabio Hüther studied at Makerere University in Kampala (Uganda), where he obtained a Master of Science in "Environment and Natural Resources Management" and an honorary doctorate from the Agriculture Research Institute.

It is not correct that the donations are not exempt from tax. Otherwise Umuntu would not have issued a confirmation. It is correct that all confirmations from Umuntu were accepted as tax deductions.

It is correct that Umuntu is not tax-exempt. However, it must be clarified that Evodrop AG has never advertised Umuntu's tax exemption.