Nice Run, But Why?, page-66

There really is some scare tissue visible.
You are comparing apples and oranges.

To state the obvious,
we had no product manufacturing on scale prepared in Europe of our OWN test, ( outlook for US market ) we had no partner company with our core technology selling 320 mil worth to the US government, providing validation of our technology to one of the largest US clients ( back then our technology was not recorgnised anywhere, it was only meant to be an add on in somebody else's test ), we had no battery division, our high accuracy test capacity was not needed as client felt it could go it alone...and failed.. ....etc....lots more to add.


Back then it was pure speculation.



As I had mentioned earlier, broker took us right back to our historic resistance level.
To have settled on pullback smack on 28 is remarkable in that context.

Back then there were no news following the spike. We will never know what would have happened if the contract would have gotten signed.
We have now ample news in the pipeline and a remarkable CEO leading us into commercialisation.

It might help to study Sona and other companies and their evaluations in regards to COVID control measures.
We are in the middle of a pandemic with vairants threatening to delay the process of getting otu of it.
Just today I read that one of the UKs leading scientists firmly believes we will be doing this for the next 10 years or so, chasing the virus and adapt.


If you want to know why we rallied yesterday, it is simply the market anticipating develeopments after our technology was validated and regulatory approval, clinical trial results expected shortly.
You seem to really underestimate how far reaching such validation is when the global market is in the midth of a pandemic.
Our add on contract back in 2014 was hardly life and death. It was a luxury they felt they could do without.

all IMO