Menaz. again you haven't brought anything new. To clarify, what I mean is that what you brought is redundant points which I already adressed. Also you've misconstrued a number of my points, which I won't even dignify with a reply. If you have to engage in misrepresentation/strawmen to make your point, then enjoy your hollow victory. The only new thing i see, your strongest point thus far, is that "Analysis of that genome led the company to new meningitis vaccines, which are now in development.", which you rightly bolded this point, your strongest and only point(which i think you know, which is why you bolded it). Now read the underline part. What does that tell you? I group you with ghet because you've both sought out the same evidence, just in different countries , and both of you have illustrated my point perfectly: lots of hype, few products, with markets. All those links you posted pretty much supports for my argument, whcih confirms its correctness. Amazingly, this was just a hypothesis I had, which I had no clue if it was correct or not. thanks for doing the initial grunt work, your/ghet's failure to find counter evidence has slightly strenghtened my beleif in its correctness. (To summarize findings: Ghet in Korea & China, he found profits based on venture capital and found 0$ in profits in the US; you looked in the US and found a single product in development) Again, I hold out hope that genetics claims will come to fruition. I have faith that scientists will fix their flawed theories and improve. I;'m not for cutting funding 100%, but there does need to be some accountability and redistribution into other fields of science. Private funds are okay, if people want to spend billions of their own money in the hope that products will be produced, I am ALL for that. As long as patents aren't incorrectly granted.