RE: CJC fundamentals still strong The only thing that I find troubling is the vetting of the news release of early December where they removed the wording about the "52" elements. This to me without a written explanation is troubling! They spent considerable amount of time producing up dated info for the website but nothing about the change.
It appears they tried to sneak it through!
The original document should be kept as it was and a new one posted with the change and a blurb on why the need for a change. There is an apparent need to change it or they would not have done it!
It was likely interpretted as an exageration and hence misleading by the exchange.