You've clearly done your research avspencer, and thanks for your...

You've clearly done your research avspencer, and thanks for your input. On a macro level, I think the purpose of a forum for shareholders is to provide solid information as you've done, but many people treat it like a social network and post meaningless, insubstantial thought bubbles. I don't care if the comment is positive or negative, as long as it has some basis.

I agree with what you've written. The thing that perplexes me is why the company went for such a small amount of capital in the IPO. I'm not in the medical research field so don't know the real costs involved, but it seems to me that $5 million is chicken feed when it comes to a substantial and ongoing marketing campaign. Especially when considering OSX is up against existing big players in the field who may already have, or be considering, a rival product. Is there some kind of competitive advantage that OSX has and can sing about in its marketing? What are your thoughts?

I admit that part of my reason for investing was a belief (unsupported) that the low amount of IPO capital raising was a positive sign that the company believed its organic growth would generate the real amount needed for a marketing push. But I would expect this confidence in its ability to greatly increase revenue – quickly – to be backed up by significant announcements shortly after listing.