RE:RE:Our first hit piece... we made it!I get that these guys need to do studies themselves and know every detail about the device to be able to endorse it. That's the scientific approach. But, you would think that their article should withstand the scrutiny with which they apply to BioCloud. As pointed out, the location of the facility is completely irrelevant, especially if they have not been inside. The fact that a manufacturer develops sports scoreboard solutions, as one of its several products, is completely irrelevant as well. This is primarily a mechanical device which will blow samples through a reagent. They can put together parts, and it is not like they are the ones manufacturing the cartridge on-site, the only part that consists of chemicals. They are not producing an organic vaccine. I note that the author has gone to a professor of mechanical and aeronautical engineering working on a bioaerosol sensor for his views, who seemingly noted that air has a lot of particles, only of few of which could contain the virus (wink, wink, remember the detection limits that were tested in a lab? 50. Sounds like a small number to me.) Third example that they underscored the whole article is citing qualifications about Health Canada. So what? Paul was VERY clear from the beginning that it is a device produced for purposes that does not require Health Canada approvals. One would hope that the federal National Research Council assessors would be in a position to say "stop, you need Health Canada approvals for this type of device" before forking over federal money and support, not once, but two times. So, Jonathan Jarry has applied his critical thinking to conclude that this is unlikely going to work. In his critical thinking, there are several examples of lack thereof and introducing a bias that is not subject to anyone having a Masters of Science degree. Sounds to me that the unanswered questions are subject to a filing for patent protection. If he wants to write an article about something he doesn't have the inner workings is fine, but to lay on other irrelevant matters to further strengthen his own scepticism, is simply unprofessional IMO. Bottom line, we are a sub-$5 stock and scepticism is the largest reason for it IMO. Hope Paul addresses stuff like this because it is taking shots at the integrity of all those involved.