RE:Market gamesThe article is so obviously biased that it is clearly designed to sow as much doubt in as many ways as possible and the main giveaways are:
1. the intent to denigrate the intentions of the management by portraying them as incompetent and corrupt when there is absolutely no evidence of that and when the accounts of an emerging Biosciences Company in the early stages usually look exactly so.
2. The intentional attempt to mislead by claiming that several companies have already achieved FDA approval and so beaten SONA to the startline when those tests are not in competetion to Sona´s, are no use in Mass Screening and the two that are Antigen Tests are clearly inferior .
3. He makes no reference to the movement towards Screening nor any mention of Rockefeller and Gates Foundations support of Antigen Testing nor other Organisations such as NIH and EU.
4 He uses one report that suggests a 4.22 billion total market when most serious Organisations are talking about the USA target alone of carrying out at least 30 million tests per week with much more than double that predicted worldwide. That comes to a minimum of 3 billion tests over a 12 month period ( and possibly much more) with a total market in the range of 60-100 billion or perhaps much more. Rockefeller suggested that the USA alone needed to set aside 75 billion for their Screening Programme.
The giveway at the end was his declaration as a shorter which really was not necessary as it was already so obvious long before the end of the article.