Viewer,You mention "peer review". Is there a possibility that...

Viewer,

You mention "peer review". Is there a possibility that they can't stand up to being reviewed?

Remember, the core of the technology is over 10 years old. Now I know these guys have failed to commercialise anything successfully in the 20 years they've been involved with the company, but that's enough time, isn't it?

It seems that the core of shareholders problem had not been the changes in the board, but the retention of the same individuals.

And I agree with one of your other points; Why hasn't a blood fractionator stumped up a few pennies for them to own this technology? Why is it only mugs like us, who don't know nearly as much as they do, who have been silly enough to trust what's been told to us?

OR, and this is the possibility that scares me the most; Have there been investors, who demand that the board/management be replaced and this was an option that the powers that be just wouldn't accept? So did we missed our chances because they were protecting themselves?