thanks for providing this and other information
as to another post bragging about this apparent result- its easy to make such prognostications bc this is what happens to over 90% of startups -so its easy to make that bet, especially with all the mutant groups in the market which specialize in destroying companies by siphoning off value/pps until the companies reason for going public is destroyed- the ability to raise money via stock until net revenue is achieved
those mutant groups plus political groups ulterior motives are helping destroy the true penny market
The Ceo came back to run the petri dish lab after a heart attack - was anybody running the lab in his absence?-nobody has told us
if he had a repeat medical episode-we dont know yet- and they cant afford somebody to run the lab in his absence-its easy to see why this would happen- because apparently the patented petri dish part of the business was not yet profitable,thanks in part to the slowdown in such business due to schools etc being closed during the covid emergency
It all comes down to money to break a new product into an existing resistant market run by existing business relationships which are resistant to new players
another reason we might not have heard more before is the threat of legal action as indicated by posts referring to another board-threat of legal action is usually a silencer of news as lawyers de facto put a gag order on their clients-and both of Brets brothers are lawyers themselves
as a previous post of mine indicated, outside attempts to produce results via litigation are usually not successful-its hard to prove intent and fraud etc(which i doubt exists).
Murphys law is a common plague with widespread wings
why dont shareholders who desire positive results instead seek what they might collectively do to solve problems- what a daringly different approach-of course that approach assumes sufficient 2 way communication =-enough information to possibly help provide solutions- the other board group at least implies they tried that- but i believe as per their own agenda- without rereading the post i read before on the other board
and it probably requires an outlay of capital-which is rare to find anywhere among the good guys- especially over time as interest usually fades over time
as to another post bragging about this apparent result- its easy to make such prognostications bc this is what happens to over 90% of startups -so its easy to make that bet, especially with all the mutant groups in the market which specialize in destroying companies by siphoning off value/pps until the companies reason for going public is destroyed- the ability to raise money via stock until net revenue is achieved
those mutant groups plus political groups ulterior motives are helping destroy the true penny market
The Ceo came back to run the petri dish lab after a heart attack - was anybody running the lab in his absence?-nobody has told us
if he had a repeat medical episode-we dont know yet- and they cant afford somebody to run the lab in his absence-its easy to see why this would happen- because apparently the patented petri dish part of the business was not yet profitable,thanks in part to the slowdown in such business due to schools etc being closed during the covid emergency
It all comes down to money to break a new product into an existing resistant market run by existing business relationships which are resistant to new players
another reason we might not have heard more before is the threat of legal action as indicated by posts referring to another board-threat of legal action is usually a silencer of news as lawyers de facto put a gag order on their clients-and both of Brets brothers are lawyers themselves
as a previous post of mine indicated, outside attempts to produce results via litigation are usually not successful-its hard to prove intent and fraud etc(which i doubt exists).
Murphys law is a common plague with widespread wings
why dont shareholders who desire positive results instead seek what they might collectively do to solve problems- what a daringly different approach-of course that approach assumes sufficient 2 way communication =-enough information to possibly help provide solutions- the other board group at least implies they tried that- but i believe as per their own agenda- without rereading the post i read before on the other board
and it probably requires an outlay of capital-which is rare to find anywhere among the good guys- especially over time as interest usually fades over time
2
1
