Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : CYPT It's Real -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (337)	1/12/2004 5:04:58 PM
From: tonto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 365

What is important to read is what the SEC believes, not CYPT. I will wait for the SEC release.

To: scion who wrote (337)	1/12/2004 7:12:39 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 365

Talk about misdirection. Here's what KPMG actually wrote in Friday's amended 8K: [LETTERHEAD OF KPMG] [LOGO] KPMG Three Embarcardero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 January 6, 2004 Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, D.C. 20549 Ladies and Gentlemen: We were previously principal accountants for Calypte Biomedical Corporation ("Calypte" or the "Company") and, under the date of February 7, 2003, except Note 20, which is as of March 24, 2003, we reported on the consolidated financial statements of Calypte as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and for the three years ended December 31, 2002. On December 23, 2003, our appointment as principal accountants was terminated. We have read the Company's statements included under Item 4 of its Form 8-K dated December 23, 2003 and we agree with such statements except for the following: 1) we are not in a position to agree or disagree with the Company's statement that the change in auditors was recommended by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company; 2) we are not in a position to agree or disagree with the Company's statement that at the time of KPMG's dismissal, the Audit Committee had completed its investigation, had reported the results of its investigation and associated recommendations to the Board of Directors, and the Board of Directors had approved such recommendations. At the time of our dismissal, we were not provided with the results of the investigation and associated recommendations and we were thus unable to determine whether an adequate investigation was conducted or whether appropriate conclusions were reached or actions taken; 3) we disagree with the statement that at the time of KPMG's dismissal, counsel for the Audit Committee had commenced to provide information to KPMG concerning the investigation conducted, conclusions reached and the actions taken by the Company. We did receive certain information related to the investigation. We did not receive any information related to the conclusions reached or the actions taken by the Company. We do not know whether counsel for the Audit Committee had begun to prepare other information to provide to KPMG at the time of our dismissal; and 4) we are not in a position to agree or disagree with the Company's statement that during the Company's two most recent fiscal years and through December 24, 2003, the Company has not consulted with OUM regarding either (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified <PAGE> January 6, 2004 Securities and Exchange Commission Page 2 transaction, either completed or proposed; or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on the Company's financial statements, and neither a written report nor oral advice was provided that was an important factor considered by the Company in reaching a decision as to the accounting, auditing, or financial reporting issue; or (ii) any matter that was either the subject of a disagreement, as that term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv)(A) of Regulation S-B and the related instructions to Item 304 of Regulation S-B. Very truly yours, /s/ KPMG LLP sec.gov