PeterFred you beat me to it - I was also going start a new...

PeterFred you beat me to it - I was also going start a new thread to cap off the Diasource discussion and to enable new threads to be free from returning to previous issues.

The following consolidates my thoughts on ADO, Diasource and the "wrong thinking" referred to by DV, which I disagree with.

First and foremost I completely agree with PeterFred's post, that ADO has products that can be applied to a broad range of industries. We have all seen the graphic stating as much in annual reports and presentation. Diagnostics was first cap off the rank and seen by ADO as a possible deal shift in the way that diagnostic tests were developed, it was the obvious first step as Joe and Geoff were familiar with it. ADO saw that the best value was to get in early in the value chain, hence pursuing new ventures such as Phillips and others. We got to the table with several of these, which I thought was truly impressive - for us not to close the Phillips deal I don't blame ADO for at all. Look at Phillips magnatech now with the amount of money they spent for the device to ultimately fall short of their expectations. With existing tests we know mix n go works as has been discussed here forever so I won’t go into it further - having worked trying to get companies to spend money and move away from the status quo is difficult

Now with respect to Diasource and the decision to buy into a new company - who made that decision? That would have been driven by the board, which Mark Bouris chaired - GC gets a bad wrap for orchestrating the deal by some, but the entire board would have been apart of the decision.
We know the finance side of the deal could have been better - this would have been in RMs realm. We also know that Ferghana was bought on to find a suitable company (via JH). DV you like to resolve JH of all responsibility for any failed decision, but at the same time acknowledge that his role on the board is a technical one - therefore he should have had the foresight to see that issues in applying mix & go to existing tests.

Diasource also failed due to the selection of the CEO - that was wrong thinking - who decided that? CG? The board?

The decision to shelve works and offload key staff also killed us for a while - who decided that? I doubt it was GC - I believe more like JH.

So batteries are the go now - and I refer to PeterFred's post in that regard - who thought of applying ADO technology to batteries in the first place? Hopefully that is "smart thinking"

This post is already long enough so I apologise - there's a lot more to discuss but that will do for now.