Editor: It probably ran up a little too quickly, and some of the buyers with a trader mentality turn around and sold. It will take a little while for the story to develop here.

Editor: I hope the company can provide some clarity to the markets regarding the WMT relationship should. It could mushroom into something mind boggling, but WMT is naturally being secretive about its plans.

Editor: As I stated in my original presentation- I loved the $2 market level. this is a high risk situation, and the company needs cash and needs to grow into their market valuation. This one is going to either be a huge win or very tough- I don’t see it as one of those in between type ideas. If you want to own some in the $2.25 range, you can use $2 as a stop loss to preserve capital if it goes the wrong way. I see this easily as a $5 stock later this year if some of their initiative are adopted by some major league names. The adoption is starting now- it’s just a case of the revenue magnitude this year.

It seems that if you pay them cash and give them stock, they will publish whatever you want them to publish.

The OTC Journal (Isen), urged investors to purchase shares of SHEP Technologies, Inc. (SHEP), while simultaneously selling 90,000 shares of SHEP that he had received as compensation for his touts.

Isen indicated in each of his SHEP reports that he would disclose his sales of SHEP shares, he failed to disclose this highly material information to his readers. All of the SHEP shares Isen held were restricted, because Isen had received them from SHEP affiliates in unregistered transactions. Isen’s sales into the U.S. public market were unlawful.

Lawrence D. Isen, age 54, resides in San Diego, California. Isen is a financial newsletter writer. He and his wife are majority owners of MarketByte LLC, which is an internet
marketing company whose sole purpose is to publish Isen’s online financial newsletter, the OTC Journal.

Microcap companies contract with MarketByte to publish the profiles and reports, and pay MarketByte in cash, company stock, or both. All cash or stock received by MarketByte pursuant to these contracts is either received directly by defendant Isen, or is paid into accounts (in the name of MarketByte or otherwise) controlled by Isen.

Two individuals negotiated an agreement whereby Isen would begin coverage of SHEP in his OTC Journal. The two
individuals acted on behalf of SHEP in negotiating the agreement with Isen.

Isen agreed to a six-month tout period, in exchange for $75,000 cash. In an oral side agreement, the two agreed to transfer to Isen 100,000 SHEP shares as part of Isen’s compensation for promoting SHEP in the OTC Journal.

Isen published his profile on SHEP in the OTC
Journal. In the profile, Isen favorably reviewed SHEP’s business concept, and counseled OTC
Journalreaders to buy SHEP shares, stating “[we also believe you must plan to participate in
SHEP for at least two years if you hope to experience a once-in-a-lifetime gain.”

The day of the first SHEP report — Isen sold and received a total gain of over $82,000 fiom his sale of 45,000 SHEP shares

Isen published approximately nine positive reports on SHEP in his OTC Journal. In these reports, Isen advised his readers to buy and hold SHEP shares. Shep could end up as a key component in nearly every motor vehicle manufactured world wide. If you want upside potential in a microcap, you
won’t find any story more exciting. In a few years this company could be a billion dollar royalty gusher.”

Isen sold all 100,000 shares of SHEP reaping total profits of $103,302.48. Simultaneously he urged OTCJournal
readers to purchase SHEP shares

Editor: Thanks for bringing this up, and in part, there is some truth to your claims despite your slanted presentation. I believe everyone who wants to should have access to this information. It’s rather entertaining that in conjunction with a 2009 idea, you bring up something that happened over 7 years ago. There’s a couple of things you don’t bother to mention in your diatribe. First, you failed to mention that in one of my “9″ articles, I suggested investors take part or all of their profits from $1 to $3 once it was over $2.50. From that point on, I never suggested buying it again. Secondly, there was an SEC case regarding the “nature” of the shares I was awarded, but did you bother to mention it was settled without admission of any wrong doing? Rather than spend the rest of my life in court and hundreds of thousands on legal fees, I simply paid back the money and settled with no admission of any guilt. It was just cheaper.

I also note you aren’t bothering the mention my subscribers just got a triple on UFFC a few weeks ago- if you want to go back a lot of years, why not go back to NTWK in 1999- $3.50 to $80 in 18 months. I got paid on that one as well.

Just to be clear- here’s what I do- small companies need exposure and shareholder bases. I have a big audience, and it gets bigger all the time. I take them as clients, and provide opinionated content. Some work out great, and there’s lots of failures. I work for enough cash to cover my hard costs, and restricted shares that I can’t sell for six months as my upside. The more money the subscribers make, the more I make. If they do poorly, I do poorly.

In the case of this particular idea, SITO- this one is either going to be a huge home run or a total bomb. I don’t see anything in between. As I plainly stated in the original presentation- the stock is overvalued, and the company needs money.  That’s no secret.

Of far greater interest is why you choose this particular idea to bash? This information is widely available. If you don’t like the idea, don’t buy the stock. It’s that simple. If you don’t like me, use the unsubcribe link and don’t read my publication. Could there be some other agenda here? Is there some particular reason you hate SITO on a personal level? Or, are you a shill for some market maker who is short.

I have nothing to hide. What’s your undisclosed agenda? Very interesting, and very entertaining. Good for a laugh.