jimstock, that "spike" in sept 09, was due mostly to just a few transactions (about 3 really). its a misconception that there was a "run" in september 2009. it was not due to unaudited financials in my opinion. look at the charts for 9/22/09 and 9/23/09.
i think those handful of trades are what helped give some short-lived credibility (to the seasoned traders) to the rumors of a reverse merger and some other fantasies about what cysg has been up to or is about to do.
are people really expecting the *audited* numbers to be THAT different from the *unaudited* numbers released 9/09? If they were so different, that would in essence, have been fraud on CYSG's part in the the 9/09 unaudited numbers.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
