Kent,

Thanks for your report, and thanks for taking the time to tour the facility.

With all due respect, I think any current long should expect answers to more relevant questions (the things you weren`t being told, and which have a material impact on our investment) OR see the results in the filings after the success of the product, before risking any more capital.

These optimistic presentations sound very similar to what was presented early on regarding Nanopierce, and then even more recently with Intercell/Brunetti. As I learned with the Brunetti deal, there is a lot more information which may be available that doesn`t necessarily have to be presented to potential shareholders. At least it is the kind of information that would affect my decision.

The management of Nanopierce was given the benefit of the doubt several times regarding their overly optimistic presentation of the facts. What logical explanation would there be for thinking that this venture will perform any differently?

I can only imagine what it would be like walking into my commercial banker`s office and expecting the bank to loan me money for a venture that is a complete 180 from my current business. I`m sure it would get even more interesting when I would refuse to share any detailed information with the bank. I realize that this isn`t how investments work in general; but, have lost a lot of money with one single company... what logic would one use to invest more money with the same individuals?

I`d still very much like to see this venture succeed. But, the company is going to have to prove itself by its performance before I would even think about investing further. I also intend to present a bit of balance on this board.... or at least suggesting that other investors (particularly the longs) revisit some of the rhetoric from the early 2000s.

I really don`t think there was enough balance at that point... But, that is just my opinion.

Jeff