Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Deep Pockets,
Just opinion but I’ll speculate that MV, with an identity created right around the date of the PR dealing with the RVA, could possibly be the one responsible for complaints to FINRA, the SEC, and the FDA. His/her statements about Petri plates, microorganism detection in four hours, and shelf life of ten years are not so subtle misstatements of FACT that can be checked on the Nanologix website by reading the research papers published by the research company Battelle coincidentally authored by that James Rogers fellow, and in other journal articles authored by Dr Faro and others and for which I see an award to that doctor by a group of his peers at CAOG in 2016. The one Battelle paper on shelf life clearly describes at least a two year shelf life for the Petri plates. I could not find any reference to ten years anywhere.
It’s a shame about the health issues suffered by Bret. I read that they were caused by agent orange but have to wonder if stress was a factor.
Now that I’ve spent an hour reading the documentation on the website I have to say I’m glad it’s still up, although I wonder why this board is still active.
Over here, Portugal has dealt strongly with decisions against the use of PCR due to massive errors in diagnostics of Covid. I wonder if the rest of the EU and eventually the US will do the same, but I doubt it given the odd obsession they have with manipulation of numbers and results. FYI, I know many unvaxxed people and none of them contracted Covid.
EI
Yman,
I had heard that story long ago but this is the first time seeing your president telling it. Good find
EI
Exploremore,
I followed the link and looked at earlier items. Is there a one-year expiration on the SEC filings? It’s oddly coincidental to see cancellations one year after each funding announcement unless they’re calendar limited
EI
Omar,
You’ve found it!
Methinks what you found is some pump service using the publicly available Nanologix SEC Regulation D filings with amounts hoping to be raised in order for the pump service to play the stock by making it appear a Eureka event.
Please show us all the news release from Nanologix to back up your statement
EI
Yman,
In studying what you posted the term “permanently enjoined” appears more than once, referring to prohibited actions related to the subject. Very interesting. Exactly how long is permanent in New Jersey?
EI
Ant,
Not what I read in the posted documents two days back. $1 million fine against you and $10 million against your company. Please publish info contradicting that.
EI
Ant
It appears from your official New Jersey legal record you have not demonstrated interest in the interests of any shareholders anywhere.
EI
Omar,
I’m going to be departing this venue due to a general lack of understanding of the effect your SEC’s regulatory actions have had upon this and other stocks.
You either choose to ignore the SEC actions and their consequences or perhaps cannot understand.
I don’t know which
I believe there’s an immense challenge faced by any company that may have disruptive technology when they attempt to garner interest from both the market and the establishment
Nanologix has faced that for years
EI
Yman and Omar,
I’m FB friends with the CEO and I can view all of his posts, so they haven’t been deleted. They are probably not visible unless you’re one of his friends. Could it be you two aren’t?
Merry Christmas.
EI
Omar,
You know the share price drop is the result of your SEC regulations change relative to non-reporting pink sheet companies.
Blocked what where?
I haven’t talked with the CEO in months, have you?
Give it a break. It’s the Christmas Season
EI
Omar,
Show me where I stated “equally”. More likely he worked harder on the company but that would be a different type of work than physical. If a lot of the work involved communication it likely could occur while he was working on his stonework. Use your reason and not your emotions
EI
Omar,
My hat’s off to the man who can both work for our interests and work on his house. I know you’re not jealous and have no personal issues against the CEO, so let me just wish you a Merry Christmas.
EI
DP,
I’ve heard there’s a parallel condition to it with your last President’s critics. Some here suffer from Nanologix Derangement Syndrome, better known as NDS. My opinion only
EI
Who benefited? My understanding is the CEO sold no shares and drew no salary so what’s the motive, MV? You make no more sense than an anonymous SEC whistleblower might, in my opinion.
EI
Omar,
The share price is in keeping with that of the literally thousands of non reporting pink sheets that were made gray market on September 28 by the new SEC ruling. Either they and Nanologix could not afford to pay the fee to OTC or chose not to.
How does that event change the patented technology?
EI
MV,
You are absolutely wrong. The patient study was completed at UTHSC and was over 300 patients with a paper published afterwards and an award won by Drs. Faro at the CAOG annual meeting in Las Vegas.
EI
DP,
It might be in your interest to become one of the moderators.
I believe in their technology and ignore those who don’t. I understand patents and the difficulties involved with what is rightfully described as disruptive technology. Anyone who believes replacing a technology being used for diagnostics that is not designed to be anything other than a research tool doesn’t understand how entrenched PCR is and how naive medical practitioners are about what labs can and cannot actually deliver.
If MERCK or another large entity had developed the N-Assay or RVA and wanted them out, they would already be in widespread use and acclaimed.
EI
Omar,
Did you truly need that sixty cents at the open?
EI
Jon Jon,
I believe Omar won’t call because those at Nanologix will recognize him.
EI
Deep Pockets,
You’ve accurately hit that nail upon its head. All positive things Nanologix are fodder for some to ridicule. Patents are the foundation for wealth creation, apparently unless they’re related to Nanologix. I believe if Nanologix was well capitalized, which the company has stated they are not, their patented technology would be far along the production path.
EI
Omar,
Thanks for your response and the list of your posts.
EI
Omar,
Please post the history of the positive posts you have made over the past ten years. It should make for a very short read. Why are you here?
EI
Omar,
My understanding is as stated with tests needing to be read by computers and results uploaded. N-Assay is read by a micro plate reader. The others were subjective.
EI
YMan and Omar,
There’s quite a divide between entrepreneurs and managers, managers work for the entrepreneurs and are useful after initial developments. Omar, you constantly neglect in your historical rants to point out why the BNP and BNF were abandoned. Neither were specific enough and could not be machine-read. They were also the product of that fake Russian scientist they had. They stated the N-Assay was all of the things that were missing with the other two technologies. My understanding is the N-Assay came up against PCR. We all can see how the shortcomings of PCR have become glaringly obvious now, so perhaps we may see the revival of that technology.
You guy hate what you don’t understand
EI
MV
It’s very likely you know nothing of medical device development. Last year you repeatedly stressed there would be no home tests for CoVid19, now there are a number. You have always derided any Nanologix development or announcement.
Have a great weekend
EI
I believe you’ll be eating crow this year
EI
Omar,
I’m not in a position to admit or deny any of it. I read the same notices as you, although I understand them.
EI
Omar,
Please research the meaning of the word “discussion” and contrast it with the word “attack”. I pointed out your error in describing a news release in which Nanologix was seeking a development partner as them stating they had one. Very simple difference.
EI
Omar,
There are research and development partnerships and then there are business and marketing partnerships. You treat mentions of seeking partners the same as having partners. The logic errors are yours, not mine. It appears that finding partners for non-PCR disruptive diagnostic technologies has been difficult. Message board posters assuming it should be easy to do just might not be correct.
EI
Omar,
Please spend more time reading those releases, you’ve missed the salient point about Nanologix not having the facilities to do the development and how the release was about seeking a “corporate partner”.
EI
I read the EIN Press Release this morning that said verbatim what the update stated. Since EIN doesn’t post to stock sites, one has to consider Nanologix is only interested in reaching those with potential interest in the technology rather than stock traders. Does success come from influencing day traders in a penny stock or reaching those who could use or manufacture a test?
I’m wagering Nanologix doesn’t give a bloody hoot about day traders
EI
Informative update. Good reveal of long term strategy for keeping their intellectual property in an open position for further development on other viruses and variants with additional patent potential.
"Rapid Viral Assay technology further expansion achieved with Notice of Allowance for Issuance of Continuation-in-Part Patent with 20 approved claims
We are pleased to announce receipt of Notice Of Allowance for a second Rapid Viral Assay Patent from the US Patent Office. The notice is for a Continuation-In-Part filed on November 21, 2020 for the Parent Patent issued November 24, 2020. It involves further protection for 20 approved claims relating to methods and a range of additional viruses for which rapid and accurate detection is vital. These include, for example, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).
Our strategy of filing additional Continuation-In-Part patent applications for the ongoing research for SARS2/COVID19 Rapid Viral Assay development taking place between NanoLogix and several critical partners is projected to continue. These entities include a diagnostic company, a research team at a significant university, and a developing collaboration with a highly regarded research organization. This strategy is well suited for the overall Intellectual Property family established with the 2020 grant of the Parent Patent 10844442 "Rapid Viral Assay". It not only provides expanded protection of our intellectual property, but further allows expansion and development of the RVA technology to fully exploit its potential for viral diagnostics, "without limitation" as stated In the original patent grant."
EI
Pum&Dum*45,
I appreciate your in depth response to my references to professional organizations presenting professional results on Nanologix technology. Someone said humor is dead in your country. Obviously it’s not
EI
YMan,
Just open your eyes and read what moderators have published on this very board under the company description
EI
The majority here are foolish or worse in their negative comments. The history of Nanologix for development features some of the premier research institutions such as Battelle, UTHSC and Women’s Hospital. The fact that developments haven’t been adopted by Big Pharma and others lies more with the PCR-focused last few decades than at the feet of the inventors. Do you trust your results now from a PCR diagnosis?
EI
Medveteran,
Your first paragraph argument is fallacious inasmuch as whether you are or are not responsible for the false accusations, you misrepresent the process. Your SEC would not reveal the identity of an accuser under any circumstances other than if they had devoted resources to determining who made false accusations. That is the anonymity part of their accusations/reporting process. Using the term whistleblower is also disingenuous, as by definition it implies someone internal to the operation of a company, which obviously you are not. Since Nanologix is an inconsequential company as a non reporting pink sheet it’s doubtful the SEC has any interest in doing what would be the right thing and pursuing the false accuser. The SEC also would never reveal an investigation if there was no action taken. It would be a non event for which YOU would not find a record, so that constitutes your misrepresentation.
EI
Lukeye,
Now that’s an alarmist post with no supporting evidence. I’m more inclined towards someone needed money and sold.
EI
Lukeye,
If my memory serves me, Nanologix has been pointing out the now recognized fault of PCR for all the years I’ve been here and probably for longer - at least a decade. The few times I’ve spoken with the CEO and asked about the diagnostics potential of their products, the defining statement was always “PCR doesn’t work the way it’s been portrayed. It registers fragments that may not be relevant to any infection and can’t differentiate between live and dead particles”.
It made sense then and fit with my lab experience and is obvious now with the failure of SARS-2 tests.
EI
and one press release in the last six months and issuing a number of shareholder updates over the same period does not equal multiple press releases.
EI
Omar8,
First step would be to release information on the existence of a patent protected technology.
I wonder how one would do that?
Oh, never mind. They just did
EI