Your concerns and opinions are matters that you clearly hold deeply. But the problem with wishing for what you hope would be the situation in an ideal world and what is the situation in the context in which NanoLogix finds itself is that in the words of Louis LaMour "you ride the horse that brought you" because you don't have access to Secretariat, Man 'O War or American Pharoah.
The point is that even putting aside the fact that I have faith in the current leadership and significant expectations for the N-Assay technology we are "riding a specific horse" and as people who have bet on that "nag" it is far wiser to do every thing to get behind it than continually complain about its imperfections--real and imagined.
The reality I see is that NanoLogix is a cash-strapped company that is making ends meet through careful management. My impression from the reports that have been issued is that it is increasing revenues and reducing expenses and although I am not certain about this I think it is likely that the CEO is basically being paid in options and shares rather than taking from the limited cash available.
When someone states that NanoLogix should hire a new CEO, marketing team, etc. I immediately wonder where they think the money is going to come from at this point in time. In my experience you have to be realistic and honest about what resources you have and how to implement a strategy using those available resources rather than wishing you had others that are unfortunately out of your reach. No "hot shot" new CEO is going to come in to a situation where revenues are scarce and every decision is tempered by tough questions about staffing and other operating costs. So NanoLogix is operating in a mode in which it has limited options and I think that the CEO is doing everything possible to maximize operations within that financial reality.
As to "partnering" I have absolutely no doubt that every legitimate investor and the CEO and Board totally agrees with the suggestion that partnering with an established large diagnostics and medical supply company is the "brass ring" or "pot of gold". I would love to see that occur and so would everyone else other than the company's enemies of which there are some. I believe that several avenues have been pursued in that regard as indicated in prior reports and I also assume that such efforts are ongoing.
I also have a serious expectation that "partnering" is much more likely to occur with the N-Assay technology than the petri plate packaging tech (at least in the US and developed markets) because there are long term producer--buyer relationships in our "high tech" system that create barriers to market penetration including the ability of large multi-product vendors to undercut prices on petri plates in ways that inhibit the ability of NanoLogix to sell to large scale users.
As I have noted previously, however, I think this advantage disappears in a lower tech but educated and administratively rational market such as found in the rural and non-urban areas of China where no breakage and long shelf life packaged petri plates that can be stored in a non-refrigerated location offer a vital component of medical diagnosis and treatment, including the possibility of testing animals and products for bacteria.
Ultimately, my point is that continual attacks on the company on a board where many others might obtain their impressions of the company is not a wise strategy for an investor. If I have something to say to someone I will generally direct my analysis to that person. If I have a significant investment in something I am not going to commit "financial suicide" by "trashing" the source of that investment. I will not, however, "pump" as was suggested by another poster. But I will defend what I think is the reality of the situation and respond to what I consider counter productive criticisms. In this situation and in my own self interest I adopt something my Mother always told me as a boy, "If you don't have something nice to say then don't say anything". I qualify that by saying that I will communicate negatives directly to a person or as I am sure you have noted, defend against what I consider unfair and/or unproductive statements.
The point is that even putting aside the fact that I have faith in the current leadership and significant expectations for the N-Assay technology we are "riding a specific horse" and as people who have bet on that "nag" it is far wiser to do every thing to get behind it than continually complain about its imperfections--real and imagined.
The reality I see is that NanoLogix is a cash-strapped company that is making ends meet through careful management. My impression from the reports that have been issued is that it is increasing revenues and reducing expenses and although I am not certain about this I think it is likely that the CEO is basically being paid in options and shares rather than taking from the limited cash available.
When someone states that NanoLogix should hire a new CEO, marketing team, etc. I immediately wonder where they think the money is going to come from at this point in time. In my experience you have to be realistic and honest about what resources you have and how to implement a strategy using those available resources rather than wishing you had others that are unfortunately out of your reach. No "hot shot" new CEO is going to come in to a situation where revenues are scarce and every decision is tempered by tough questions about staffing and other operating costs. So NanoLogix is operating in a mode in which it has limited options and I think that the CEO is doing everything possible to maximize operations within that financial reality.
As to "partnering" I have absolutely no doubt that every legitimate investor and the CEO and Board totally agrees with the suggestion that partnering with an established large diagnostics and medical supply company is the "brass ring" or "pot of gold". I would love to see that occur and so would everyone else other than the company's enemies of which there are some. I believe that several avenues have been pursued in that regard as indicated in prior reports and I also assume that such efforts are ongoing.
I also have a serious expectation that "partnering" is much more likely to occur with the N-Assay technology than the petri plate packaging tech (at least in the US and developed markets) because there are long term producer--buyer relationships in our "high tech" system that create barriers to market penetration including the ability of large multi-product vendors to undercut prices on petri plates in ways that inhibit the ability of NanoLogix to sell to large scale users.
As I have noted previously, however, I think this advantage disappears in a lower tech but educated and administratively rational market such as found in the rural and non-urban areas of China where no breakage and long shelf life packaged petri plates that can be stored in a non-refrigerated location offer a vital component of medical diagnosis and treatment, including the possibility of testing animals and products for bacteria.
Ultimately, my point is that continual attacks on the company on a board where many others might obtain their impressions of the company is not a wise strategy for an investor. If I have something to say to someone I will generally direct my analysis to that person. If I have a significant investment in something I am not going to commit "financial suicide" by "trashing" the source of that investment. I will not, however, "pump" as was suggested by another poster. But I will defend what I think is the reality of the situation and respond to what I consider counter productive criticisms. In this situation and in my own self interest I adopt something my Mother always told me as a boy, "If you don't have something nice to say then don't say anything". I qualify that by saying that I will communicate negatives directly to a person or as I am sure you have noted, defend against what I consider unfair and/or unproductive statements.
