Not on existing technology, on the developing new quantitative QD based test. {smh}

Whether we call it a beehive, keiretsu, or supply chain, all work for win-wins but none of these systems address the question-

Why would QMC create these jobs internally when they would appear to be a better fit for their sister company Innova?

Possible explanations:
- Innova is just a distributor of other people's products and don't want to invest in developing technologies themselves (though they have Dr. Malan), or
- Innova and QMC are merging into one entity (the efforts are redundant otherwise), or
- Pasaca is getting ready to IPO Innova and wants to maximize cash flow (and thus the share price offering) so they are shifting development costs onto QMC (where they would have to share value creation with existing shareholders), or
- Innova is not sharing info and QMC is on their own to develop LFD's. (This last one seems most unlikely to me.)

There may be other options, but I don't have time at the moment to come up with more.

I think it's an indication of something like that, too.

In my experience, the material supplier develops the materials and the OEM/application company develops the finished products. The exception to that is when a new material is in the early stage of its life cycle and there are no or few applications, then the material supplier invests in creating products for a pull-through strategy, e.g., GE with their LEXAN polycarbonate and window glazing. In the the LFD case, not only are there a number of entities in the diagnostic kit space, one of them is a "sister" company. While nano chemists need to and can learn property requirements of various applications, it's not as easy or efficient for applications engineers to learn the formulation options for the materials. Joint development programs combine respective competencies. These hires would make more sense if Innova wasn't part of the equation.

That is the only conclusion I could come up with as well. Though Dr. Malan shifted over to Innova to do development work.

I don't understand why QMC would hire folks to develop LFD's. Seems like these are roles Innova would hire for. QMC would want (Ph.D.) chemists to develop nanomaterials for these and other applications. Different skills and knowledge.

I never said QMC cannot succeed without Pasaca. Nor did I say Pasaca would dump/sell/other QMC but would hold Innova forever.

LOL, it clearly does not. It actually states that it is "Hard to do an NPV when the future is so uncertain." Uncertain* does not imply or equate to "QMC would have nothing."

* Uncertain - "Not able to be relied on; not known or definite."

By my actual stated logic, yes, it is reasonable to believe that someday Pasaca is likely to sell or IPO Innova. I did not however provide an argument, nor do I know, that this is the "best time" to do that.

Nowhere in my statement do I say that they are limited their sales to one customer.

Nowhere in my statement do I say that the day after Pasaca sells QMC that Innova stops buying from QMC.

Why do presume this is a negative? Private equity funds buy companies, increase their value, and then sell them. That is the standard model. Acknowledging that is not being anti-QMC.

Again, what is illogical?

So what is illogical? You don't think Pasaca is going to encourage Innova to buy from QMC? Or is it that you think Pasaca is going to continue that encouragement after they no longer own QMC?

Maybe read it again.

Nothing I wrote in #99200 aligns with any of these straw men. {smh}

Hard to do an NPV when the future is so uncertain. Sure, as long as Pasaca benefits as a shareholder they'll encourage their other holding, Innova, to buy something from QMC. What happens after that? AC just might be a vehicle for a quick ROI and then at some later time after Pasaca dumps their shares... maybe Innova no longer worries about counterfeiting.

THE MORNING NEWSLETTER

The Covid Testing Slump
Covid-19 testing is on the decline. That’s a problem.

By David Leonhardt
March 26, 2021
Updated 8:31 a.m. ET

A few weeks ago, Citigroup began providing at-home Covid-19 testing kits to many of its workers in Chicago and New York. Each kit includes a nasal swab, a paper strip and a liquid solution, and people get a result within minutes. “It looks a little like a pregnancy test,” Dr. Lori Zimmerman, Citigroup’s medical director, told me.

The company is distributing enough tests for employees to take them three times per week, typically on Monday, Wednesday and Friday mornings. Soon, Citigroup will expand the program to 6,000 more employees nationwide. The goal, Zimmerman said, is to help people learn that they have Covid before they can infect colleagues or customers.

This is the kind of ambitious testing program that many medical experts believe should be available across the country. Why? Even as more Americans are receiving vaccine shots, the country remains months away from vaccination being the norm. In the meantime, wide-scale testing can allow life to begin returning to normal — without setting off deadly new Covid outbreaks.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is going in the opposite direction on testing. The number of daily tests has declined 35 percent since mid-January:



“We have to do more,” Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, told me. “This pandemic is not over. We still have dangerously high levels.”

‘It pays for itself’
Testing has declined partly because the health care system has instead focused on giving vaccine shots. And vaccinations are indeed more important than Covid tests. But the country should not have to choose between the two, experts say. If the U.S. can accelerate both vaccinations and testing, the payoff would be huge, in terms of lives saved and schools and businesses reopened.

“It pays for itself,” Dr. Michael Mina, a Harvard University epidemiologist who has argued for more testing, said. “Tests are one of the easiest, least burdensome things we could do.”

For Monica Jurado, a Citi personal banker on the South Side of Chicago, testing has become a simple part of her morning ritual. After taking a test, she gets ready for work — and, 20 minutes later, she can see the test result. “It gives me tremendous peace of mind knowing that I am coming to work safe, and so are my co-workers,” Jurado said.

Worldwide, several countries, including Australia and South Korea, have already used mass testing to hold down Covid cases, as Vox’s Umair Irfan notes. Many colleges in the U.S., as well as pro sports leagues, have also relied on testing to continue operating. And Biden administration officials say they are committed to making tests more available, including for people who show no symptoms.

“Testing is a major pillar of the president’s strategy,” Carole Johnson, the White House’s testing coordinator, told me yesterday. “We think it’s really important.”

So what will it take for the U.S. to do more testing?

Three steps for more tests
Money. The recently passed virus-relief law includes $50 billion for expanded testing, including $10 billion for schools. That will help, experts say, although it’s not yet clear how much.

The tests that Citigroup is giving cost about $5 each, when bought in large quantities. A nationwide program of universal mass testing for unvaccinated people would probably cost a few billion dollars a week — which, again, pales compared with the cost of extended shutdowns. The country’s current testing plan is much less aggressive.

Logistical help. With many hospitals and pharmacies focused on vaccinations, people need places to get tested. The Biden administration is working with state and local officials to open four regional coordinating centers in coming weeks.

Corporate America can play a role, as well. Large Canadian companies recently created a consortium to give rapid-result tests to employees, and the group’s organizers announced this week that they planned to expand into the U.S.

F.D.A. approval. Citigroup has been able to distribute its tests — which are known as rapid antigen tests — only because it is doing so as part of an academic study; the Food & Drug Administration has not approved the tests Citigroup is using. The agency has approved two other at-home antigen tests, but they are not yet widely available.

One issue is that rapid-antigen tests are slightly less accurate — missing some people who have Covid — than the other main type of test, which is known as a P.C.R. test and isn’t an option for mass home testing. But that’s OK. Think of it this way: Citigroup is detecting many more Covid cases than most employers are.

The bottom line
In President Biden’s first two months in office, his administration has made impressive progress in increasing the pace of vaccinations. But he still faces two overriding Covid challenges, in order to prevent thousands of needless deaths.

First, he needs to accelerate vaccinations further — to match the rate at which pharmaceutical companies are delivering shots. (The new goal Biden announced yesterday — to hit 200 million vaccinations in his first 100 days — is not ambitious enough to get there). Second, the administration will have to find a way to reverse the recent decline in testing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/26/briefing/jessica-walter-suez-canal-usc-gynecologist.html

LOL, I'm guessing the financially linked Dr. Mina is not coming back with the wrong answer.

Yes. And, depending on the outcome of the patent case in E-TX, maybe also Nanoco's.

Not sure that it matters since it is said that Innova doesn't need U.S. sales, but these low sensitivity numbers relative to some of the competition may explain the delay in receiving an EUA from the FDA.

Covid-19: Lateral flow tests are better at identifying people with symptoms, finds Cochrane review
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n823

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013705.pub2/full

Hansol Chemical: A Top Earnings Play
http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=63286

LOL, typical "Strawman!" fallacy. A argument about a position that doesn't exist.

P.S.- QMC's is an patent application.

Why Technical Analysis is Nonsense
https://seekingalpha.com/article/59187-why-technical-analysis-is-nonsense

Since QMC accomplishment claims are verification siren calls for non-cult members, I knew there was an opportunity to lay a trap. Unfortunately, my dear wife said that I need to start drinking the whiskeys and stop adding to the inventory. Alas, I'll lay in wait for another time when the shelf has an empty spot.

- Using Quantum Dots for Identification, Authentication, and Tracking of Objects

Systems, methods, apparatus and techniques for authenticating objects includes applying quantum dots to an object, wherein the quantum dots have an identified spectral response pattern, and recording data associating the object and the identified spectral response pattern.

link

Inventors: Williams; Jay M.; (Austin, TX) ; Squires; Stephen; (San Marcos, TX)
Applicant: Quantum Materials Corp. San Marcos TX US
Family ID: 1000005116583
Appl. No.: 17/024640
Filed: September 17, 2020

I was not expecting revenue either.

And thus you did not sell 1-2 million shares in the first hour of trading.

I was thinking the same exact thing. The financials are the first stop.

The move from 10 to 15 was based on what? Speculation that the filings would offer up fabulous goodies?

IMO, trading swings will dominate until the fundamentals actually provide $'s to support the share price.

CFGN lowering their invisible ceiling.

I don't believe it is that complicated. QMC's potential products and applications are still in various stages of development. Pasaca saw an opportunity to leverage their "first major buyer" position to turn $15M into $75M (or more) and took it. As I said earlier, it's a rigged game; they control QMC's revenue streams. Pasaca cannot lose (unless there are patent issues). Regardless of whether they even need an app or an AC tag/system, they can buy it from QMC, pass the added cost onto customers, offset their costs, and put into motion the event (QMC's first real revenue) that drives the ROI on their relatively small capital outlay.

Regardless, what can you point to in the filing that would be impacted (or changed) by the Kansas lawsuit, i.e., requiring a delay?

I thought of that as I was typing and figured it was worth a roll of the dice, LOL. Plus, when I asked the court they thought April was more likely. Still, they were forecasting and forecasts are often wrong.

Found it- $500,000 "Contract Liabilities" on Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Statements

I've only had a few minutes but where did the $1M Deferred Revenue (liability on Balance Sheet) reported in the Mar '19 Q go? I didn't see anything in the Income Statement or Cash Flow report to offset it. I'll keep looking. Did they not get money from Assam?

Could be worse. You could have said they were being held back because of the Kansas trial.

10-K June 2019
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001403570/000149315221006582/form10-k.htm

"As of March 19, 2021, the issuer had 699,339,396 shares of common stock"
(Up 5,971,454 since 3/15/21)

I've lost track, so I apologize if this is a repeat.

John C. Carrano, PhD
Senior Vice President Clinical R&D and Regulatory Affairs
Quantum Materials Corp Full-time
Employed Mar 2021 – Present
Employment Duration 1 mo
San Marcos, Texas, United States

https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnccarrano/

Gold nanoparticles.

And FWIW, if you search Twitter you will come across a few UK data science folks asking why they are spending all that money on the LF testing in schools when the latest data reveals that the percentage of children being identified as positive for Covid-19 (from these tests) equals the expected false positive rate.

e.g.,

Using lateral flow tests for asymptomatic testing looks increasingly like an expensive waste of time and needless isolation. Here, 0.12% were positive; Innova says the false positive rate is 0.32%. That can't be helping slow spread of Covid-19 in any meaningful way. https://t.co/LaDJAV85qw

— Doug Clow (@dougclow) March 16, 2021