With this turn of events, I suppose I`d like to post a question that has been eating at me for a number of months.

The County of Los Alamos provided a copy of a letter dated July 29, 2003 that stayed the award of the Los Alamos work to Brunetti DEC. This letter precedes the Intercell / Brunetti deal by almost two months.

I`m not an attorney, so I can only offer my personal opinion about this matter. To me it seems improper that an investor in any proposed venture would not have been informed of a letter staying any contract proceedings, particularly when it was that one specific contract that made the marriage between Intercell and Brunetti DEC so attractive.

Until someone can explain who felt this information was irrelevant, and why the deal was done anyway, I`ll continue to have my own suspicions. Now that both companies are BK no one will probably feel it is important enough to comment about.

I don`t think it should be too hard to figure out why so many of us are skeptical about these new deals which are completely unrelated to Nanopierce`s core technology, and which appear from out of the blue.

I`d sure like to know if anyone else reads this situation the same way.

Jeff