And actually also gives us a good idea of what it was about, and even the choices that were made, which were right for the business at the time. Not having this understanding (like a lot of things) will lead to false conclusions and statements that are more funny than actually taken seriously by anyone who knows how to put supplemental information together. A narrative to make MedGen or Nick try to look bad stops when it does just that ('Walgreens is a lie, it's been months", etc). A narrative that looks for the whole truth takes the situation--good or bad-- applies all of the given information about it then reaches the most obvious conclusion (if we are patient, Walgreens is a real contract, kind of obvious, actually, and we'll see plenty more of that). What's the most tell-tale is the tired 'scam' argument is no longer the most obvious conclusion. Not by a longshot.