Thanks for the informative reply. I appreciate

Thanks for the informative reply. I appreciate your efforts to keep bashers away. From my perspective they are a criminal "cancer" that is helping to stunt American innovation because their clear strategy is to protect existing market shares at all costs while dominant producers "milk" the ultimate from their aging products.

The NanoLogix situation is a paradigm of the attempts to suppress significantly better diagnostic technologies (and the combined packaging technology) because it possesses the ability to devastate the companies that have long dominated the markets in these areas. Consider, for example, the patented packaging technology that allows petri dishes and the agar filler and other elements to remain unbroken, fresh, usable at pristine levels a year or more after manufacture, and can withstand "field" conditions in harsh climatic contexts.

It is a "no brainer" that this simple but brilliant breakthrough should dominate the purchases of users and consumers of the petri culture products. It is an equal "No brainer" that the existing companies who do not hold the patents will do everything they can to prevent what would quickly become a massive loss of market share.

I actually have no problem with traditional competitive efforts by dominant companies to protect their market share. But with the Internet they have begun to engage in criminal activity by hiring incredibly creepy "bashers" to engage in sabotage of potential competitors.

This criminal activity by people paid to undermine developing companies whose products threaten existing companies' markets is having enormous impact on American start up companies with real innovations. This is because they are inevitably underfunded, understaffed, and have to work very hard to make inroads into the large scale users of their new products--in part because the traditional producers are well known for the "perks" they provide those who make the buying decisions for the users of the products.

This is why scientific presentations by people such as Dr. Faro are so important. It is why the publication of related scientific papers in this area on behalf of the NanoLogix N-Assay, packaging durability and BNF are so important. In this specific area there is nothing as good as the NanoLogix technology and as the research quickly completes the design of the neonatal, sepsis and other "panels" that allow a diagnostician to almost immediately evaluate a range of possible bacteriological conditions in order to concentrate efforts on the most effective treatment protocols. The NanoLogix technologies are superior to the extent that hospitals, doctors, the CDC, WHO, plaintiff and defense lawyers and insurance companies will, in my opinion, generate the required momentum to allow the NanoLogix technologies to expand rapidly into the relevant domestic and international markets. With distribution agreements in place with Saudi and Singaporean companies this will allow penetration into those markets.

I have even sent a note to NanoLogix urging the company to share the technological information offered by Dr. Faro and the patented packaging technology with medical insurance companies, and plaintiff and defense lawyers because it has significant implications for hospital and doctor liability for bacterial infections that would have been identified with the NanoLogix technology but was not detected in time (or at all) with existing methods. This becomes even more important as the Medicare people start denying reimbursement for Hospital Acquired Infections (HAIs).

In any event, please continue to control the "bashers". Maybe "it's me" but when I posted on IHub there were certain individuals who were always making comments about the NanoLogix staff or CEO as well as a kind of "Chinese Water Torture" by means of the incessant drip of demands about financials. It is one thing to make the point once or twice, quite another to beat the drum without let up. At a certain point it is fair to ask about the motivations of people who never have any positive points to make about a company in which they claim to be invested (but often are not).

Something I have started working on is a sort of market analysis of the economic potential of the NanoLogix products based on the post I did the other day relating to Dr. Faro's presentation. I want to obtain a sense of how much current GBS tests costs and how the NanoLogix tests fit into that pattern so there are some data I need to develop. So I will probably post something on this by next Wednesday.