Have you even once considered that the master service agreement with ICON instead of a classic partnership may have been decided as a method to increase shareholder value in the long run by getting a better partnership deal for the post-CLIA phase?

You admit in an earlier post that negotiations were ongoing when GC mentioned having a partner by the end of the summer. At that point, he also assumed the bridge study data would be available, but it got delayed. Rather than make a bad deal just to have a partner in the time frame he presented, maybe he is actually buying time to make a better deal once the data is complete because he's confident it will be good.

It's very possible that this will end up being much better for all of us if we just let it play out. The deal with ICON kept them on target for the CLIA phase. It's all a process and things have to go one step at a time. Judging by today's blog, any delays we've experienced aren't related to any failures...they're just delays...and minor delays in the big scheme of things.

If today's blog doesn't address your concerns sufficiently, then I don't know what else to tell you.