Ann: Chairman's Address and Presentation to AGM, page-102

Try helping yourself then.

Perhaps you could read the independent report by Polaris?

Nothing is wrong with the IP or the science.

It's the economics that have been the problem.

The cost of adoption vs the perceived benefits, industry inertia. It's the cost of ADO passively waiting for industry takeup, with a bit of spruiking along the way. This ignored the reality of the cost of adoption, and the associated regulatory burden.

When I spoke with Geoff Cumming about this early in the piece, he was firmly optimistic it would all be taken care of. by the benefits of the science. My error to be reassured by this. It's an error to think it would all be fixed by the Diasource deal as well.

Diasource would behaved like any other company. It's running a business, and it was not going to be incubator for ADO's antics which were continuing to fail to deliver financial results and which was in continual need of rescussitation.

(Diasource wanted out of a deal that was going nowhere for either partner. ADO simply bit off more than it could chew. We have to stop doing this. At least Joe Maeji can see this if others cannot.)

Repeat: there is no problem with the science. You're not a genius Rameez.

Yet if you speak with some in here, it's all Diasource's fault. Even if Diasource took up Anteobind/Mix & Go, it wouldn't have had any positive effect on the bottom line for years!! People forget this because we're hurt that another company behaved rationally and enforced the terms of the purchase agreement.

They quite rationally decided to only adopt the technology new tests, not existing ones simply because of the high cost of adoption. Cumming was aware of this from the beginning. Pretending he was blindsided is simply untrue.

Diasource were simply waiting for ADO to bring income in as part of their side of the bargain, the side they must have used to dazzle Diasource into signing up with them.

This is perfectly rational and it shows they have a sound business nose. It's the kind of business nose that we need Rolf Sickman on the team for. We need to stop the goodies vs baddies ideas and face reality.

The simple fact is that ADO failed to deliver on deals, BUT it's important to understand why.

It doesn't mean deals won't be forthcoming in the future. Indeed ,some are maturing.

Rameez you conflate issues, and this is every bit as annoying as those who are still beating the drum that ADO is just a victim and Diasource are the baddies.

The problems stem from an over confident CEO, in love with the undeniably brilliant science, who thought that Diasource deal was only there to make his dreams a reality.

No. They acted just like any other company would. ADO failed to become the market changer. It didn't bring money to the table. It couldn't finance the deal. It has already fully tapped out shareholders, and the company was bleeding money for years because of this idea that we would dazzle industry with the science and the rest would follow.

Lesson: Science doesn't always trump economics.

Please get off your soapbox because you don't understand this at all. But nor do the other mob in here.

Hopefully some of you will catch on soon.