That was a good and thoughtful reply. As to "hy

That was a good and thoughtful reply.

As to "hyping" I agree with your observation about the medical community suppliers, etc. being reticent about anything other than PCR. But the "good" aspect of the COVID-19 situation is that people have begun to better understand the limits of PCR, including reliability, problems with detection of live versus dead infections which can interfere with treatment protocols, percentage of false positives and negatives, expense of equipment, difficulty in terms of variable point of care options, the impossibility of ordinary person self-testing, etc.

As I see the NNLX technology based on the reports, it offers a far faster and more accurate diagnostic screen than anything else, avoids the range of problems noted in the prior paragraph, is said to apply to a wide range of different viruses, will allow detection of various viruses at an early enough stage to create early intervention medical care and/or protective isolation of infected people to restrict spread, etc.

I do not see that as "hype" because it is all based on a reasonable interpretation of the information that has been provided us. Assuming that to be accurate, the fact is that there is nothing out there that offers the capabilities of the NNLX technology as developed by Faro, Rogers, and the NNLX CEO. COVID-19 has been a "wake up" call in many ways and the need for this technology and the diagnostic limits of PCR lead the pack.

But, I respect the fact that you responded substantively rather than "disliked" which tells us nothing.