Ann: Update on Legal Proceedings and BARD1 Autoantibody Program, page-8

I think the issue is that (confirmed again today), the merged BD1/SDX entity essentially 'starved' the BARD1 work-stream of CAPEX to the point where it would fail (die of attrition), which I would suggest (IMO), is not what was agreed/discussed when the 'plaintiffs' were voting ex-directors of the BD1-board...

As I've commented previously, some 'unjustifiably-large' ego's came across with SDX-merge, which has meant the merger of BD1/SDX was (has become) a 'reverse-takeover' which certainly isn't necessarily to the benefit of all SHs as such...

I myself would be much more inclined to support the 'dropping' of the BARD1 work-stream if there is/was undeniable statistical-evidence that demonstrates the current-direction is far outweighed by not running with both streams (BARD1 & Sub2M), but as far as I can tell in my research/reading, this 'undeniable' statistical-evidence is not present, leading me to believe it's more about the 'ego's' that came across with SDX, than the competition of alternative scientific approaches...

Running with multiple work-streams maintains transparent optionality of any competing science being far-better than another...