And the second sentence ("ADOX has never released the film to be developed in anything but ADOTECH.") is not true at all. Adox's own description of the film mentions two other developers in regards to how they can be used with the film:
"If used in pictorial photography the film achieves 20 ASA of usable speed in ADOTECH developer. If used for high contrast purposes the usable speed increases to 80 ASA. If developed in non dedicated low contrast developers (HC 110, cafenol etc) it can be exposed at 6-12 ASA."
The claim that CMS 20 needs Adotech to be consistent in results and quality is highly ridiculous.
Problems with these films are well documented just on this one Website, from pinholes and chunks of emulsion missing even when following the published special processing instructions, to banding, mis-stamping of edge notches, rough base material, etc. The only one I have not experienced personally is the banding. I am sure the makers have heard directly from users on quite more than a few occasions.
The stuff can be beautiful when you get it to work flawlessly, but it is just plain not as well made as Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, or even Rollei products by any stretch of the imagination. Many people seem to have kind of come to accept that this is just the kind of stuff you have to deal with when shooting Ekfe/Adox old-school emulsions. In order to make our ways around all the technical problems with these films, some have come up with our own methods, which are even more careful than the published methods that say to simply skip the stop bath. To avoid problems with the emulsion, I use no stop bath, I use an alkaline fixer, and I never develop warmer than 68 F, which I usually do with all other films without the slightest hint of any issues. I also never develop sheet film together in trays, as the rough surface of the base and roughly cut edges can play hell on the soft emulsions.
But I suppose it could be claimed that all these problems are just be because people are not using Adox chemicals!