5-1, what is record date?

I see that the 5-1 froward split was approved and will be given to those who have shares as of the record. But what record date? Have they set it? Or was it the march 5th date? Or what?

The reason I ask is I want to buy some more shares here soon but don't want to be left out on the split and get hosed.

thanks all,
alex

you are getting in the way of the pump machine, it has no heart and no soul. keep posting because they want you to stop posting common sense stuff like that. well thought out to, I got out before the cc announcement for the same reason as you. Hope you didn't take a loss.

Fair enough, it the whole are you serious bit that got me. If you were just a member here then i would expect it, but as a moderator I took it as extra weighted. Not fair for me to do that, i am sorry. To move on

I not sure if the Facts are clear here, or if I am really confused.

It say drugs WITH Devices (scope) doesn't that imply that they have to be relational and not disjointed. If you agree with that then i may see where you are going, but I still think that Dean wouldn't add more stuff to IMGG as it would slow the process down and Dean has made it clear he wants this done very soon.

So what do you think the scope says when it say drugs WITH Devices. is that not inclusive and imply a conjunct? I pretty much read that and thought, this is all about drugs with Devices, not devices or drugs or whatever. But the relation between the two. it seems clear to me, maybe i am losing my mind LOL

I guess I don't want to face the fact that IMGG is going to be further Delayed by some new regulation. It will take more time that is for sure, as the FDA now has it under a micro scope.

Oh well we wait and we will see. i hope it has nothing to do with IMGG, I really don't think it does but I want this approved as quickly as possible.

Am i serious, is that a crack at me or something. I am welcome to any help, but please avoid putting contentious conditions on that help. I am not a child, so please treat me with respect. I am not attacking anyone here, and i don't like to sniped at like I am confused

Here is how i read it. look at the scope, It say drugs WITH devices.

The scope is there for a reason, i am not an idiot.

The asked for intended use clarification to be exact. Dean said it was Basically a label, but basic does not make it a label.

i have seen the post from the FDA website about the relationship with labeling of course, but some have ran with it that this is the only use for intended use.

It is used for the application, the determination of equivalence, and then labeling if it moves through that process.

I poat a FDA flow chart earlier this week that clearly shows they use intended use for determination. Also the new FDA document as shows it in section A pg 10.

So it may be wishful thing, or he didn't want to say something that would harm the company. Which is an appeal to your idea that Dean wouldn't do that with drugs, so i think that should apply here also.

Found this over at the crazy yahoo's, crazy place but this seem right to me

Ok just read the new FDA document

http://www.fdanews.com/ext/files/UCM1959...

To read this, you must first read the scope statement. it tells us what this document covers. This document pertains only to image drugs used WITH image devices. It is a not a conditional statement, or a disjunct statement, it is clearly an conjunct statement.

To explain. 1+1=2. the scope of the + sign is for both #1's drug and image device. This is the scope of an conjunct (and statement). The 2 is of course the new protocol to be used, or the outcome of the statement to be more general.

it is NOT "if 1 then 2", which would be conditional

it is NOT 1 or 1 = 2 which is of curse a disjunct scope. (i think this is where the confusion comes in, nothing to be excited about it doesn't hold this logical form in the scope)
*i am just paraphrasing here, but my husband was in contract law and it really not that hard to see the logical form here, but look it up on the web if you like*


BUT: Read the scope statement first, it explains what this document is to be used for. its not if, or, but it is an AND statement

imaging drugs and imagining devices relationship (together) = what this document is all about and to add procedure for. Focus is on drugs though, but it is clear that the scope is for drugs being USED with imagine device.


This is not bad news really, if this was pertaining to IMGG then we would be even more delayed.

Also check page 10 section A and you will see the intended use is used for determination. i point this out because there has been much confusion that IMGG was a label issue, this should clear it up for good then.

It clear as day, read it for yourself.

Not good news, but not bad news, it just doesn't fit the scope and thus is nothing pertaining to DVIS

Take it as you will, not bashing or pumping. just getting the word out

So we are in for more delays then? This just adds more to the process, and more to look at. I couldn't imagine a new regulation will speed this up, this could take us to march since now the FDA can come back for even more info, right?

I never thought the DVIS was going for image contrast drugs, i thought it could of been approved without any appeal to this :(

I was also in the mind set that Dean was going for the quickest and shortest route to approval. Then he could just re apply for more apps. Maybe he is doing this, I'm not sure, but i sure don't want another FDA excuse for more delays.

I wouldn't worry about it, IMGG DVIS doesn't use imageing drugs, or at least not at this moment.

if this did pertain to IMGG I would be worried as new regulations never move fast. The FDA is already slow, image if we had anther hurdle to jump through and a new hurdle at that. It would extend the process even more IMHO

I read it, nothing to do with IMGG though. IMGG doesn't use image drugs, so this is not anything about imgg

FDA would run it though the 510k process before it ever kicked an application back for reapplying. Unless it was totally messed up or did fit the expected form of the 510k application. if it looks good and it if it is good is something completely different.

All I can say id look at the chart, then follow the flow, there many terminations spots. Not to kill it, but to have it kicked back out for re application. Its not getting denied, persay, it just the FDA saying "wrong place, try this place"

FDA are not so helpful for them to just look at 510k and say "umm...this is never going to pass the test". Wow, I wish it was that simple. But why not? Because the determination process is what says if it is in the right place or not, to do anything else would be impossible or ad hoc behavior

never said they did, I said if FDA is comparing that machine to DVIS (per applicate equivalence 510k). If they are not and IMGG has used another type of machine to compare it with, then that would explain the need to narrow the intended use and the request for images. Of course this brings is own problems, but that is the nature of the beast and why I think Dean shot for the gold ring on equivalence rather then going the longer route, but its his machine he does what he feels he can do best. The sooner the better is what I want, just hope this is not another delay (and there has been a lot through the years)

I am not saying we are dead, or anything stupid like that. I started this whole post to show, what a lot of people have been telling people(and what dean told us) is not true, or better, not correct.

The notion that intended use is a label is true, but only post 510k approval. People argue about this because they don't understand it. There are stages to the process... application, determination and then post approval. Well the intended use being clarified with the request for more images being closely time related shows that we are clearly not in post approval land, but squarely in determination process.

I could bash and say this could be still in application process, but that isn't what I think at all. It wouldn't make sense unless the FDA uses images as part of the application. If that is true, then that would bring this into a different light, but I have not heard that they need images to apply but that could be my mistake.

But it is clear that intended use clarification is used in determination and application, and not only labeling (all this is show in flow chart from FDA itself) So that is why i corrected it. Now it looks like I am a basher, when all I am is someone who does not want to pump or bash but actually participate in a discussion based on correct information. Then go from there, I focus on the worst case because i have always been taught to hope for the best but plane for the worse

FDA is pillar of honesty and morals, is that ok? Does that sound right to you? If it does that is fine, but for me I think the FDa is a not only a regulatory body but also a political body. It has been used for such things in the past, senators have been known to call fda and something get cleared that day or it gets buried.

Never said FDA would say no, just said the FDA will do its job and do it very very well if someone with power put pressure on them.

Of course FDA could be a government regulatory body that actually has ethic and morals and does ONLY its job with no interference. But that would fly in the face of many political science theories of regulatory powers and how they are used buy those who appoint them.

But ya the FDA could be a clean vessels of purity, that can not be swayed at all, not by anyone. i could be true, but is it believable?

Ge stopping approval is a big time concern here also. Ge, or lets just say big players with big money, can get thing done they want done. Maybe not kill IMGG FDA outright, but just bleed it out with the FDA asking for more information or move it to non-equivalence with appeals to the FDA process that we already discussed as a possible game changer or end game play.

So believe you me, I think about the little guy get stomped out by the big machine all the time. I really hope that is not going to happen, but it is possible and it has been a long long wait.

Also keep in mind Toshiba already has 3d ct scanners, they say real time but I have heard different. If FDA are comparing that with imgg, then our saftey concerns won't be an issue but our precision concerns as it pertains to equivalence application could be brought into question also. And you can be sure GE would be pushing that angle hard.

Oh well, we wait and we will see sooner or later.

Off the shelf is being used differently then they were originally designed to do. If you run anyone of these off the self parts differently then they were approved for then you all you are doing is using off the shelf parts to do something they were never designed to function. So equivalence is not been maintained since their use is not for their FDA approved intended use. I think of it like this.

If I strap a rocket on a new car, a rocket that has been tested and has been approved to be used a a rocket, can I just say that its no longer a rocket but a car engine or take it from the other side can I just go out say my car is now a rocket because it has a rocket engine on it.

Well the car is off the shelf, the rocket is off the shelf, but a rocket car is not off the shelf. The components are not being used for their intended use or purpose or being used in a different way then they were approved for.

So if IMGG could have problems with the intended use of the DVIS and combining that intended use to stay compliant for the off the shelf parts intended use. if it can't maintain that equivalence with the off the shelf parts then IMGG has built a one of a kind machine and that could lead us down a longer road.

oh not saying you are. Cheer leading wasn't pointed at you or anyone but those who fit the description. As in regards to your last statement:

"At some point one would think that one could decide to trust ones own decision making ability once you have accumulated sufficient facts."

Not nit picking here, or attacking so I hope you understand this or don't take it personally as it is more aimed at my thinking then really at you.

There are not a lot of facts that can not be turned on themselves. What some call fact here, is what other call opinions. What are facts I ask myself? Someone telling me something is not a fact to me. If they tell me something and it defies logic or physics, I will not take that as fact. I already have primary facts that out do those other "facts" called logic or reasonablity as it relates to a propositions and its function/mechanisms that are, of course, relevant to the process. The same thing can be said about any product or stock or even people. If those don't aline then there is something that needs to be fixed? Is it my logic system, my belief system or do i just form a totally new construct?

A lot of opinions around here, acting like facts. The facts i see can go either way, so deciding to trust is not relevant, better to form a plan.

I think of it like this, (metaphor/) its a fact that a storm is coming it could be really bad/good/neutral. Keeping on your toes and preparing for the worse case if better since if it is good or neutral you have nothing to prepare for you'll be fine. But if, just maybe, that storm is really bad who survives?, the ones who comfort themselves or the ones who build a boat to sail away after the flood? (/end metaphor)

i am dreaming of the good days, but a boat is being built as we speak. Waste of time, maybe, but it better then JUST dreaming or hoping (not saying you are of course ;))

it could be, but i would think that to request images and clarification of intended use around the same time is not what I would call homerun on approval. They had images, they had intended use, they didn't like ether one and had to change or provide new ones.

I just want to be clear here, these are just the negative possibilities that need to be considered. it could be all good, just not sure why all the other stuff like RSNA and no images were not so good. Also Dean saying it was basically a label, misled a lot of people and that makes me wonder "AM I ONE TOO?". Lets me just ask, would you of thought this was basically a label without Dean confirming it for ya? I sure wouldn't, and after i found out it was not labeling but part of the 510k process I was a little shaken by that. He should know this stuff, if he did he misled if he didn't what good is he in the FDA process?

Its really strange, I don't want to become emotionally vested in a stock, but a I also don't want to cheerleader it over a cliff either.

when did ya sell some? Did you buy back in and where?

There has been a large sell off, was that you LOL :) Joking aside i figure you sold and got your captial investment back and are playing with the houses money right? Is that correct, not trying bait ya or anything, but if you did.

Why would they not do the same? Not saying they are going to sell it all off, but lets be honest they could if they felt so inclined. So why wouldn't they do the same as you and sell some off, with no approval news that sell off could very well spark another death drop we had a few weeks ago. It sure wouldn't hurt them tax wise, front load to next year and make a fantastic profit, all this with no risk what so ever. Well if you are greedy maybe you would stay, but pigs get slaughtered says it all.


Anyway I am really interested on how you played this and why and where you sold and bought.

it could go from 5 to 7 but that leads us to a really good question, the FDA needed intended use to define the precision qualification as it pertained to the images sent.

If the images were not as good, or didn't show that it could do what it said it was intended to do then we could be back 4 or being kicked to the performance data route after 7, where the images and the actual testing data done during investigation period which could be a great place to request more info and thus more time and probably anther sell off :(.

I am not saying we are done for, or anything like that at all. All I am saying is that we are a lot farther out then Dean said/thought we were. if we get a request for labeling, game over we win. But we have not, we get nothing but silence and a very very large sell off. To me that tells me something is not quite right here, and I need to watch it.

Of course it could just be the MM< or the pumpers on message boards you see all over the place. But if there is silence from the company, someone/something will speak for it, that is the market, and market is saying "I'm not so sure about IMGG being approved prior to restricted shares come on line".

Not saying I support GAT or anything, but he has a point on those shares. No one who can sell now who got this at .02 is going to hold on a weak or stagnant stock that raises these type of concerns. Well not when you are holding a 2000-3000% profit, that is just crazy. They will sell to get profits and play with house money, at least that is what I would do.

To me the red flag have been raised and those holders are waiting to sell when they get the chance.

here is the chart, sorry guys losing my mind i guess :)


FDA approval chart, and it shows intended use statements are used in the APPROVAL process, NOT POST APPROVAL when labeling comes in.


http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM081395.pdf

sorry Joe didn't see your post
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM081395.pdf


Well if you look at the flow chart there are few way that the image request can be seen. If it was done at 3 then goes to 4, which would be very quick and we would get a request for intended use shortly after filing, then we lead to termination and go the long route

but we could also be looking at a 3 to 5 process, still early on but leads to another question on the images with regards to it technology and/or precision qualification. If images were not good enough for the intended use, one that is just like the equivalence machine it is being measured against, then that answer the images question as it relates to intended use in pre approval process

Those are just 2 I see by looking at the chart for a minute. But I think it is safe to say that were are still in pre approval process and thus not a labeling issue but a application or approval issue

i hate to say it, but I think Dean may of went for the golden ring with equivalence. From looking at that flow chart, and having done my DD (combined with no new images to compare then to ) on DVIS, I don't think that we are in for a quick approval. At least if the images were not up to snuff.

Jusy my 2 cents, not fact of course. but i had to correct the intended use as a label thing. It just not right and is misleading to think it as such IMHO.

well the one from 2007 was FDA saying to go ahead and test it, to gather information, then come back to us.

Dean chose the equivalence process because it much faster, and he just like everyone wants it done sooner then later. if they come back and say we are in for a longer haul, which is a very good possibility. Then we go for a longer walk, while others sell to do all this over again months/years down the road.

Think about it like this, If you believe Dean when he says this is revolutionary product, nothing like it on the market then how can that jive with your idea that this is like a MRI or any other machines. Dean said it is one of kind, break through. Well that takes time if it really is that kind of product. Why? For the reason I stated before, longer FDA process

DVIS IS NOT MRI



DVIS is not a MRI (magentic resonance is not DVIS), it is not a CT or an X ray,

now tell me that why DVIS is an MRI again.Is it an MRI? NO, of course not. Is it equivalent to process? or similar to function? No I don't think so.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM081395.pdf


so we move to another form in the FDA process, not a big deal just means longer waits and not a slam dunk to be approved like with equivalence

Nice try, or whatever saying DVIS is an MRI, call it what you will but they function completely different

The details are important though

Details are what makes transparency. No transparency, through details of the process, can get you/me in trouble.

I rather focus on the FDA process and what Dean said it basically was a label. Its not, intended use is clearly seen in the FDA flowchart as a approval or move to other decision making process.

This signals not a labeling issue, that is post approval process, but rather a possible long approval process off the equivalence chart and into new techonlogies. Which takes longer and is not what Dean applied for.

So FDA could come right back and say, file again for non equivalence process, the place for new tech to be approved. That takes a long long time to do.

If nothing is on the market like IMGG DVIS, then that is the next step, not approval. Nothing like it, means nothing to equivocate to other FDA approved machines. So we wait even longer, and restricted shares can sold and we do this all over again

clarification of use,not a label

quote:
"Second, why did it take him approx a week to submit the clarification on the label? The step of labeling comes ONLY after the machine is "preapproved" by the FDA if it was not "preapproved", then why bother with labeling something that is not getting approval? Also, the labeling is, for the most part, an FDA approved marketing tool to use after approval. So think about it this way, I believe that the only reason Dean took so long to submit the clarification, which should have taken less than a day, is because he needed the extra time to contact the "potential" buyer for them to have there input as to what they wanted the label to say for their future marketing efforts"

It was not a clarification on the label, it was a clarification on the intended use, which is part of the approval process. Look at this chart for substantial equivalence.

This could mean that we are either going to be terminated as substantial equivalence (look to the right and see the intended use and how it leads to termination in the flow chart?

If we are moving to that of non-substantial equivalence then it will take much longer as they have nothing on the market to substantial equivocate to.

You see that is why we are not going up, it going to be a long wait and Dean should of never said that intended use was basically labeling. It is not, not at this point at least.
.

Thank you so much, and to the other guy who sent me a link in the mail. Way cool of you guys, i have my sisiter doing all this, but she audits corporations but love to do these types of taxes. i just wanted to make sure she had all the info, she may love to do them but when the work piles up and all those figures have to be dealt with I not sure how much she is going to like this. LOL I have done hundreds of trades, hundreds, and lost a lot :( Oh well, hope she likes this stuff, I sure don't

so FDA in January sometime?

if 60 days that would take us into januray then, don't we also have some of the large buyers in the .02 range coming to be able to sell back there shares? Wouldn't that tank us?

Lost a lot of money this year, is sceh D forward loss the way to go?

Ok I make around 60k a year.
I lost around 26k in the stock market
Can i write all that off?
I heard that with a schedule D forward loss I can claim is 3,000 of that loss. Is that true and is that repeatable? Or can i just file all of the 26k loss?

I just looking for some opinions, not lookiong for anyone to get mad or to tell me to get a tax guy. I have my sister doing it, who does audits of companies and all taxes. i just want to do as much leg work as possible and make sure I have my ducks in a row for when I drop this on her.

I hope you guys can give me some ideas if i am on the right track here, Any help is welcome, and any discussion is also welcome.

Thanks guys

we better have approval by then or they will sell for a nice chunk of change I guess.

IMGG closed 24th through to 28th, so no covering will occur, how low will we go?

Will the shorts cover and how low will we go?

last week we had a nice pop of 50% from the bottom, what do you guys think will be the bottom tomorrow? Will we get a pop from the shorts covering and buyers buying in to avoid missing anything? if we go below .62 should i wait for the kick?

Any chart guys out there? Any one got some ideas for the trade play?

I think you may have mistaken this as something much different then it is. Friday was a day to cover and get shares in position for another pull down on monday, it a short trap set to be sprung on those who only look at the rosey pictures of mounds of cash. We move down hard and people cry about it being MM doing, then we move up 1 day in total and we are now in a pumpers paradise? Doesn't that make you worry? Why are so many people so happy with out anything to back it up with. No images, nothing from dean but more and more excuse or half truths. Warren buffet 101, sell when people are much to happy then they should be and buy when they are really really scared. I am not scared, but I am getting angry that Dean couldn't get images that he said we could get and get them on the website. he post picture of his teeth on facebook, if he has time to play on facebook then he has time to get those images up. Does he do it no, that alone should raise red flags

there has been a massive sell off, it tells the tale from last week. last week was the start of the slide and Dean said nothing. That worries me, if you people want to just hold and not trade this stock that is one thing but to buy into all this hype is just crazy. Hype only works if MOMO is going tot he up, it is not.

Call me devils advocate, suspicious, or whatever but I am right and safe with my profits.

That article say the exact same thing I have been saying for days. Is that what you mean, and yes it would be crazy to go long on this stock. I sell and I buy, but I when I buy or when I sell has no bearing on my post. I have shares but do I say that IMGG is going to fly or we are going to get apporval today? No, we have enough of that stuff here. I post the truth and now when it comes around I get people not say anything but why are you still here then. Because watch this stock everyday and its something to say about sharing insights on the board rather then pumping a stock

Do i want it to go up, sure, but my wnats and desires are not what matter here. Its how healthy the stock is and why we aren't looking to Dean for answer or to at least give us what he promised.

Let me ask you , Could Dean be lying (let say dishonest)? Would it matter if he did legally?

WE need the new images we were promised

Dean promised us all these images and has not delivered. He said we needed Clarification of intended use, called it basically a LABELING ISSUE WHICH IT IS NOT (BUT WHAT EVER.

What we should be concerned with is that the new high resolution images requested by the FDA are connected with the intended us clarification. If intended use is that of to replace a CT scanner, which is what it has been pumped up to be, then that would explain why he had to change or clarify the intended use. He ave then poor images to try to seek on by the FDA, but of course FDA caught him and now he back pedals saying he doesn't want to make the FDA made by putting pressure in them.

What ever Dean, you say you are on this board, well where are the images and why are we no being called out on this stuff everywhere.

this article for one:
http://thestreetsweeper.org/undersurveillance.html?i=79

and check all the other boards this is getting out of control and needs to be fixed now!!!!

Dean has misled us,found this over on yahoo, and it seems spot on.

FDA came back about 30 days ago, and just wanted labeling information.
The last step in approval. BY FDA guidlines they need to reply in 30
days, and if that is to hold true for business days that is tomorrow
or Monday.

Everything about this part of your post is inaccurate.

1) And I have repeated this over and over and over again but nobody
can seem to get it through their thick heads. The FDA did not want
LABELING information. While it is true that LABELING information is a
post approval step THIS IS NOT WHAT THE FDA WANTED. The fda asked for
"CLARIFICATION OF THE INTENDED USE STATEMENT" which is not a specific
step in a 510K application but rather something that needs to be
included in the initial application itself. Dean is the one that
mislead everyone by saying "its basically a label" NO! ITS NOT!!!!

A label is for marketing purposes and is basically a users guide.

Intended Use is something the FDA needs to know to base their decision
of approval or denial. They need to know what the device is
specifically to be USED for. If Dean wanted the Intended Use statement
to convey that the Dominion was to be used as a @#$%in paperweight the
damn thing would be approved already. Basically what happened is Dean
@#$%ed up the application and the FDA said "wait a minute we dont
understand what exactly you want to do with this device, before we
review this application in its entirety you need to clarify"

See the difference?

2) The whole 30 day thing was another misleading statement by Dean.
The FDA doesn't have to do @#$% if they dont want to. 30 days is a
guideline and only a guideline. Just because they followed it before
doesn't mean they will follow it again. And I will tell you
this...VERY RARELY does a delay in response from the FDA spell
Approval...thats why this stock is crumbling upon itself.

please share the e-mail

great info on IMGG, over at on yahoo

Check out their website if you haven't already

http://www.imaging3.com/

The only one of its kind, a total game changer, there are others that are similar but only refresh at 5 minute interval (Toshibas machine for one). IMGG is 3-D and real time refreshes every 1/10 of a second. Also it produces 50% less radiation, so this should play well for the radiation scare play.

Patent held to 2024

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7317819/description.html


It doesn't need phase 3 power supplies so no expensive electrical modifications needed, it runs on 110 and is also portable. So it can be used in clinics and no special room or power needed and be moved to patients who can or shouldn’t be moved. That works with new medicine plans of more small clinics and the move away from large hospitals. And it cost half the price, should be a really great seller for the new medical era.

It is a displacement technology; it will take the place of decades old ct and x ray machine that are in need of repairs or replacement in which hospitals are now in fear of being sued over in class action lawsuits and it’s at half the cost!! of those outdated and dangerous machines.

Dean says he already has buy orders holding for approval, 50% deposits already in hand for when FDA approval comes. So capital is there to get started as soon as news is released. He did say they have too many orders to fill, but I guess that is a good thing to have people standing in line. Then when they are fully ramped up they will already have orders to fill and it also generates demand.

RSNA attendance was down, but IMGG attendance was up 60%, and they were positioned between Toshiba (which I believe dean worked for prior to his invention) and GE (who is getting sued for CT scanners). From that IMGG now has 2 non-disclosures documents from both and given Deans prior relationship with Toshiba that could very well mean a buy out by either one of them in efforts to move away from dangerous CT scanner to the DVIS IMGG scanner. It is not if but when this get bought out.

The best is that this has already been FDA approved for investigative testing for the last 2 years. In which is can be used to replace CT scanners and more.

It uses off the shelf technology, in which those parts are already FDA approved. So FDA approval is not in question, it is just a matter of when.

FDA came back about 30 days ago, and just wanted CLARIFICATION OF THE INTENDED USE STATEMENT information. Dean said that is just a labeling issue and this is the last step in approval. By FDA guidelines they should to reply in 30 days, of course this is just guidelines but if that is to hold true for business days this could happen anytime now.

Just do you DD on this think this is a good as it gets as risk to reward or investment play. It’s a total game changer.

Check out his IMGG Info great stuff

Check out their website if you haven't already

http://www.imaging3.com/

The only one of its kind, a total game changer, there are others that are similar but only refresh at 5 minute interval (Toshibas machine for one). IMGG is 3-D and real time refreshes every 1/10 of a second. Also it produces 50% less radiation, so this should play well for the radiation scare play.

Patent held to 2024

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7317819/description.html


It doesn't need phase 3 power supplies so no expensive electrical modifications needed, it runs on 110 and is also portable. So it can be used in clinics and no special room or power needed and be moved to patients who can or shouldn’t be moved. That works with new medicine plans of more small clinics and the move away from large hospitals. And it cost half the price, should be a really great seller for the new medical era.

It is a displacement technology; it will take the place of decades old ct and x ray machine that are in need of repairs or replacement in which hospitals are now in fear of being sued over in class action lawsuits and it’s at half the cost!! of those outdated and dangerous machines.

Dean already has buy orders holding for approval, 50% deposits already in hand for when FDA approval comes. So capital is there to get started as soon as news is released. He did say they have too many orders to fill, but I guess that is a good thing to have people standing in line. Then when they are fully ramped up they will already have orders to fill and it also generates demand.

RSNA attendance was down, but IMGG attendance was up 60%, and they were positioned between Toshiba (which I believe dean worked for prior to his invention) and GE (who is getting sued for CT scanners). Form that IMGG know has 2 non-disclosures documents from both and given Deans prior relationship with Toshiba that could very well mean a buy out by either one of them in efforts to move away from dangerous CT scanner to the DVIS IMGG scanner. It is not if but when this get bought out.

The best is that this has already been tested for the last 2 years, and universality of Michigan has ordered them for testing for animals since FDA needs to approve it first for humans

It uses off the shelf technology, in which those parts are already FDA approved. So FDA approval is not in question, it is just a matter of when.

FDA came back about 30 days ago, and just wanted labeling information. This is the last step in approval. By FDA guidelines they need to reply in 30 days, and if that is to hold true for business days that is tomorrow or Monday.

Just do you DD on this, I have and have been waiting for the charts to show a buy. It is at a technical break out point, so it good for trades or longs. I'm long, but do as you like. I think this is a good as it gets as risk to reward or investment play. It’s a total game changer.

lev2 this is bottom, shorts will cover friday

That large order on level 2 at .75 is forming the bottom. Friday will also bring us a bounce since shorts will cover to protect profits and limit exposure for weekend FDA announcement possibility. Monday will show where we go from here, but this looks like a good buy now. Friday will be much better