My two points were very straightforward. I do not

My two points were very straightforward. I do not appreciate the private communication or its undertones, which I do not completely understand. I don't have the time or motivation to get into a tit for tat dialogue with you or anyone else. My first point was that writing derogatory statements about the FDA and its employees that are reviewing an application submission was a terrible idea. Government employees do not need any reasons to delay the application or add impediments to the process. I have had the pleasure of dealing with dozens of Investor Relations (IR) personnel over the years and whilst I first gave you credit for the removal it may indeed be you were ordered to by a Superior. If you are a Company IR you have a strange methodology about going about your tasks. Most interactions with IR's that I have had left me with the impression that they live paycheck to paycheck and have already cashed in stock options in their dreams even though the reality is they are worthless. Most IR's have an inflated opinion of their knowledge and think they are superior to investors. In actuality, most are name droppers that play a game of being closer to management than they are. Perusing your opinions leaves me assuming you are confrontational and belittling of investors for no apparent reason, yet I gave you credit for reversing course on openly criticizing the FDA. Yet you call me passive aggressive. You repeatedly reference the superior mantra of building the company as opposed to those worried about share price and you blatantly call out the FDA before any decision has been made. If you are a Company IR your approach is unique but it does not appear to be successful.

My only other point was the press release cited was not very credible in its research and appears to be from a paid content creation team that publicizes dozens of paid press releases a month. What business of yours is it if I am a trader. There is nothing to trade here. I do not believe in the Pharma Tech company, why would I or anyone? With all due respect, Pharma Tech is underfunded, does not appear to have an infrastructure or a regional or national sales force. Most businesses whether public or private fail as a result of not having enough capital and or poor planning. Is it Suzy Q shareholders fault Pharma Tech financial resources appear worse than the average household in middle America? Add that it is very difficult to penetrate a mature, competitive market with new technologies on the horizon and cheaper overseas devices. This is one of the dozens of FU gambling plays I make. No different than putting chips on various numbers on a roulette table. As far as bets go, I had this at 50/50 based only on a competent law firm suing a Bad Actor that has had mediocre results at best in prior high ticket litigation actions against them. Any expectation of a near 9 figure win has evaporated, but the Fat Lady has not finished singing. While the odds are low I have been known to be lucky at times. Other than the slim potential of a court victory nothing excites me about the growth or revenue prospects here. To your point, even if there was transparency, this is not worth modeling. There is a reason that private equity, friends and family and even the suppliers are not providing funding. After all, it would be mutually beneficial for the suppliers to fund this enterprise. Cheap money is flowing like a river from Wall Street to Main Street, so either I am missing something or there is a lack of transparency. I do not wish to communicate with you further, so please refrain from any further private communique. You didn't even upset my appetite for lunch if that was your intention.