Hi Peter,

I believe I know the answer to this one, but I am asking anyway on the behalf of others as well. 

My question is a counter bash on the principle that even though you won't release the names of the companies that purchase services, your auditors know the names of the companies that purchase your services, and we get assured of that when they publish their SEC audit reports?

A common bash I've seen on pyrogensis is more or less the claim that (paraphrased) "the contracts don't exist and are fraudulent. They won't release the company names in the contracts, because the contracts are fake to begin with. The number in the contracts is high enough to attract interest but low enough to avoid too many people accusing them of fraud. Etc etc Pyrogenesis is making up fake contracts with fake companies or related parties to pump the stock"

What I quoted is the jist of a common bash, that I currently saw today the overall claim that contracts are completely fraudulent.

My question. 

When KPMG , and now Grant Thornton audits your financial statements to comply with the SEC regulations. Do the auditors know the companies behind the contracts ? 

My question boils down to. You won't tell us, and the auditors won't tell us, but do the auditors confirm as a third party that the contracts are correctly stated. The auditors knows what companies are purchasing services, and that is included as part of their audit opinion when they issue their quarterly and annual reports?