The proof is in the PRs released by the company in March and the supplemental info filed with the SEC which, in the past, I had quoted extensively defending the company from what I thought was misrepresentation and attacks.
In those PRs and on the radio interviews, DECN stated repeatedly that they had a test that "worked", was fast and accurate and that had been tested in South Korea.
If you want to defend those statements as "true", because the meter turned on and gave a result, even if it was an inaccurate result, you are free to do so, but I believe those statements were clearly intended to make everyone believe the words as they were said, that DECN had modified their test strips and meters so that they had a test for Covid-19 that worked.
It has since been clarified that those statements were not true, as given by the company's own recent developments and statements as well as the documents filed during the suspension court case.
You can spin it any way you want, but it wasn't true. They do not have a finalized working test kit that meets FDA standards. If they did, it would be rather foolish not to submit the test and test data to the FDA for approval, wouldn't it?
Remember, the company stated testing in a US approved lab for the blood test kit was to occur before mid May. Hey, the post office and shipments can be delayed, but we were actually never told clearly why that didn't happen other than a PR stating they were waiting for final FDA guidelines on testing.
We are 3 months out from the blood kit testing promise given by the company and most of the latest news is about submittal of testing data for the new saliva test kits. I hope they do get those to work and if they do, the stock will rocket. But the saliva kits do not answer all the promises and statements made in PR and on radio about the blood test kits given in the past.
Everyone can take it as they want, but there is plenty of "proof" if you actually read all the PRs and filings of the company itself. It has not been transparent and honest in revealing all the setbacks and shortcomings of what had been promised. You can argue that they aren't legally responsible to do so based on the nature of the product development and that can be argued back and forth. But when a company makes statements to infer things that are not true, that is the definition of misleading.
AI
