NIH - if nothing really good from ACTC by Wednesday, may just go to NIH for their perspective. Enough is enough, especially when it appears lack of honesty may be involved. Good DD means checking everything out - and right now it appears ACTC is hinging its entire future on NIH monies (the recent foreign infusion looks good for the S. Koreans but not much for us) - and that is a big concern for lots of reasons IMHO. Rest if market is turning, and stems are obviously not as hot as cracked up to be - can't even get private funding from those proclaiming such benefits. However, ACTC can still make a dent by some solid performance (financials must be updated even if not for SEC but as good business practice and basis for NIH or ANY funding; solid business plan with milestones and metrics; either push (can alsomexpedite USPTO reviews if its important, or get Provisinal, patents that will cover a year or so) to get patents fixed or forget the patents; stop giving away IP/patent rights/licenses; get the research and testing in high gear; get new PR and mgmt team who will really work and communicate, honestly. Lanza had time to write a non-related book when time and enbergy have been urgent ESC research and funding, so this also of concern regarding priorities and any RoI for stockholders.