why now, page-13

Harvett may is suggest it is you again that are missing the point.

The reason nobody apparently mentioned this effected final approval is because we all realised it.
The statement is not hard to understand.

"final product approval is still expected by June/July 2009 provided SBL is able to resolve the storage condition issue to MPS’ satisfaction."

Its not the first time they have asked us to change things because they want this product to suit their needs and the science behind it to be spot on.
The mps have the right to ask us because of the numbers they will be buying.
As i said before recalibration was required because they will be sending people straight to jail on this test is just one example.

There is no more to it than that harvett you are jumping at shadows mate that are not there.
At despite what you think it has been discussed because everyone releasied what the statement meant.