While I agree with this statement in the strictest sense, I take issue with what you are clearly implying.

In my opinion, whatever is done in regards to the reverse split, and what has been done is selling preferred shares to Arizcan, has been done in order to benefit the Company. If it benefits the Company, it ultimately benefits the shareholders of the company. That includes Arizcan, as well as Company management.

In that way, I agree with your statement.

On the other hand, your implication seems to be that if there were a choice to be made between something that would benefit Arizcan, but would at the same time be detrimental to shareholders, the decision would be made in favor of Arizcan, and ``let the shareholders be darned``.

I believe this amounts to an unfair and unjustified criticism of Management`s priorities, and decision making criteria, and is not based on what has been done in the past. I have seen no evidence, for example, that Arizcan benefitted in any way regarding the most recent financing arranged to consumate the BioAgra joint venture. (Other than the benefits gained by ALL shareholders in the Company.)

If one is generally suspicious of Nanopierce`s management, it would be easy to conclude that the ultimate transfer of 60% of the Company`s shares to Arizcan is a ``nice perk``, and screws the shareholders. That conclusion disregards any role played by Arizcan in providing past or future financing for development and ongoing operations, and is in my opinion, based in prejudice, not fact.

In my opinion, your stance on this matter amounts to pandering to the baser desires of a few self-righteous and angry shareholders on this board in an attempt to be viewed in a favorable light. I don`t think it does justice to the true motives of Management.

-zties