I don't think you read my post carefully enough. The bold text is lifted from my original post:

"By providing some credible evidence of the technology's value, the stock should respond significantly, thereby reducing the number of shares needed in a primary issue"

In other words, before drastically diluting the stock at .10 per share, some serious PR work (if it is all true) could substantially increase the price, at which time you could make a primary market offering.

Consider 10 cents per share compared to 1.00 per share (1.00 not at all a stretch with substantial news in the oncology arena).

Under the first scenario, to raise 30 million dollars, you would go from current float

of 50 million to 350 million shares. A 600% increase

Under second scenario, same amount of money could be raised by releasing just 30 million shares: a 60% increase.

If this cannot be done now, given all the past inuendo, then this is either a scam or management is inept at communication. If it is the latter, then the communication issue needs to be addressed before attempting a share release. As I mentioned before, I am hoping the new appointments may in some way address this issue.