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.
Provista website has the proof: no DR-70.
Here are the new scientific papers we haven't seen yet:
"Use of Biomarkers:" no mention of fibrin or fibrinogen.
http://www.provistadx.com/uploads/pdfs/publications/Potential%20Use%20of%20Biomarkers%20to%20Augment%20Clinical%20Decisions%20for%20the%20Detection%20of%20Breast%20Cancer_Onc&HemReview_Fall%202014.pdf
"Breast Symposium 2014:" no mention of fibrin or fibrinogen.
http://www.provistadx.com/uploads/pdfs/posters/Breast%20Symposium%202014%20Poster_Combining%20serum%20autoantibody%20measurements%20with%20serum%20protein%20biomarkers%20for%20the%20detection%20of%20invasive%20breast%20cancer.pdf
That's all the proof an educated person needs: Provista is NOT using DR-70. Provista therefore has no need for Radient.
I suppose Provista might want to buy the eWellness/Dignyte shell but Radient is NOT part of Provista's plans. This should end the debate.
Yes, Capitalization has a way of dramatically changing.
Look at RXPC for example. RXPC's Capitalization dramatically changed from $50 million to $500,000 in a very short time, starting in 2011, coincidentally when the merger rumor started.
Then in 2014 it changed from $500,000 to $0 where it currently stands and shall forever stand.
Bloomberg says the O/S is 1.5 billion but we all know that Bloomberg is a notoriously poor source of information -- we all know the O/S is 5 billion. Not that it matters because any O/S number multiplied by zero is still zero.
"Who would want DR-70 by itself.."
guardiangel you said:
"That study proves DR-70 alone is not a good bio marker for lung cancer.. That is why William's combination..Radient and Provista Dx LC Sentinel is better than DR-70 alone..Who would want DR-70 by itself.."
Please explain. You think GCDx is marketing a combination of Provista's LC Sentinel and DR-70? That's what you think GCDx is selling?
And what is UNI Pharma selling then?
And what is in AMDL Australia's Saliva Test?
Thanks in advance.
guardiangel you said:
"[Gartner] has started a company GCDX with the IP collaboration between Radient and PDX lung cancer test."
Radient? What "Radient" are you talking about?
Is it "Radient Pharmaceuticals?" Because if so, I think you are mistaken. Radient Pharmaceuticals declared itself insolvent and had its share registration revoked many months ago. Radient Pharmaceuticals as a corporation is voided, their only patent for a cancer test expired, their only patent application for a cancer test received a final rejection from the USPTO, and their office in Tustin CA has a Sheriff's Seizure notice on the door.
Must be a different "Radient" you're talking about. Please explain.
Also, PDX does not have a lung cancer test. They used to have one called LC Sentinel but they removed that from their pipeline in early 2013.
We are all yawning here, waiting for a fictitious "merger" that is never going to happen. But that is not the topic of discussion.
The topic of discussion is whether DR"-70 is a key component for a number of Provista cancer tests."
There are no facts and there is no evidence that Provista is using DR-70 other than some PR's from 2009 through 2011, and those were all for LC Sentinel which was a standalone version of DR-70.
Provista quietly removed LC Sentinel from its pipeline in 2013. That negates any PR's about LC Sentinel dating prior to 2013.
Provista's other tests are specific to a certain type of cancer. DR-70 is not specific to any type of cancer and therefore would not be part of ANY cancer-specific test.
dcspka you said:
"DR-70 is a key component for a number of Provista cancer tests"
That is not true. DR-70 is not a component, key or otherwise, of ANY Provista test.
If Provista was using DR-70 they would say they were using DR-70. They'd owe that disclosure to their investors and to the FDA. They couldn't keep something like that secret.
I have seen the light.
Radient is an undiscovered gem. If RXPC ever trades again I'm backing up the truck and riding the rocket to the moon, and then I'll hold with Strong Hands.
RXPC Shares revoked? just a diversion. Corporation void? just a diversion. Officers and Directors skipped town? All part of the secret plan to make us all millionaires.
Lack of evidence of a merger/takeover? That in itself is evidence of a merger/takeover. Company insolvent? Just a diversion. Patent expired? oh no there are dozens of patents, they are just hidden as part of the Creeping Takeover Group's Plan.
Hallelujah!
guardiangel you said:
"My same thoughts..."
IN RESPONSE TO:
"Go ahead and find out their corporate status and get back here with the results. Otherwise nothing else posted really matters."
I think jimtash was talking to you, since you claim to have paid the $10 to learn the corporate status.
AMDL's corporation status is meaningless. Nobody here owns shares in AMDL.
NuVax's corporation status is meaningless. Nobody here owns shares in NuVax.
The only corporation status that has meaning here is the corporation status of Radient Pharmaceuticals and we know that is VOIDED.
Radient is currently not a corporation or a shell. Radient is currently nothing.
What a waste of $10.
The agreement with UNI-Pharma is NOT still in force. That's not even worth discussing further. UNI isn't paying AMDL a penny because they don't have to. They're going to have a hard enough time turning a profit on DR-70. My prediction is, in five years they will have given up. Probably sooner.
"Since 2008 Mac knew what his future plans would be..."
Really? Mac's plan was to default on every loan, become insolvent, have shares revoked, resign as CEO, and abandon all the furniture for the sheriff to seize?
I disagree. I think the plan in 2008 was to make a profit from Jade. Unfortunately, in 2009, Jade mutinied, and Radient was forced to try and make money from CIT and DR-70. RXPC ex-shareholders know how well THAT worked out every time they look for their RXPC "position" in their brokerage account.
"place all agreements with AMDLDX Inc. including DR-70/Onko Sure and CIT through its wholly owned subsidiary.."
wrong, NuVax is the subsidiary that got CIT, not AMDL. Spend another $10 to check NuVax's corporate status?
"Collecting royalties from Uni-Pharma and paying down Radient's pharma Accounts payable ...."
Nobody is collecting royalties from Uni-Pharma, and even if they were, $100,000 per year wouldn't go very far towards paying down Radient's Accounts payable.. the last we heard, Accounts Payable was $900,000 in the RED two years ago and the defaulted loans were about $18 million.
dcspka, you said:
" follow the money. "
Radient said in their last 8k that they are insolvent. There is no money here. Anyone following the money is long gone from RXPC.
What is AMDL's corporate status?
The UNI Agreement is terminated. What else would AMDL be doing? Why would they be operating? When the last patent expired, AMDL lost their one and only asset. I doubt AMDL is active in Delaware. What would be the point?
In the VERY SLIM CHANCE that AMDL is operating, that doesn't help RXPC shareholders unless RXPC shares get registered again, which has even a SLIMMER chance.
The AMDL/UNI Agreement is terminated.
Three things were identified that would cause the termination of the Agreement:
http://www.bespeedy.info/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zZWMuZ292L0FyY2hpdmVzL2VkZ2FyL2RhdGEvODM4ODc5LzAwMDEyMTM5MDAxMzAwMzA3OC9mOGswNjExMTNfcmFkaWVudHBoYXJtLmh0bQ%3D%3D
1. expiration of the last patent issued to us for the Tests,
2. when UNI terminates the agreement by discontinuing the offering of the Tests, or
3. if UNI does not achieve sales necessary to meet the contractual minimum royalty payments for two consecutive fiscal quarters.
#1 happened. "The last patent issued to [AMDL/Radient] for the tests" expired. The Agreement is therefore terminated.
The UNI Agreement is terminated. But that matters little because that agreement only brought in $100,000 per year to Radient/AMDL. $100,000 per year wouldn't even pay for one week of Radient's operating costs. Forget the $85 million they lost in 2010 and the $85 million they lost in 2011 -- Radient burned $10 million a year just in operating costs.
Put that in perspective. Even without the massive debt, they needed $10 million per year to break even on operating costs. They got $100,000. The UNI agreement would have paid for 1% of operating costs.
The reason Radient never filed for bankruptcy is because a company files bankruptcy to protect assets. Radient had no assets so why bother?
guardiangel YOU said:
"Fortunately, most of those 4.501 billion shares are in the hands of those who will be in control of the new entity.."
You have no proof of that. One thing we know: after the 8k announcing that the company was insolvent and shares were being revoked, the 500 million BID was all from eTrade's market maker. We also know that the RXPC shareholders were warned that shares would be revoked, so any institutions who MAY have been holding RXPC would have sold. Sorry, buty all evidence points to RXPC shares being solely in the hands of Retail, and Ignorant Retail at that.
guardiangel you also said:
"All debt from the lenders HAS BEEN CONVERTED.."
That is ludicrous. You can't covnert $20 million in debt by issuing 3 billion shares at .0001
guardiangel you also said:
"The lenders now hold 31 per cent ownership of the 4.5 billion outstanding shares "
that is ludicrous. Not a chance that those lenders (hedge funds) owned a single share of a stock they knew was having its share registration revoked.
"
guardiangel you also said:
"the Voluntary Revocation... "
IT WAS NOT VOLUNTARY.. From the 8k:
"On April 15, 2014, the Company executed an Offer of Settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, revoking the registration of the Company's securities."
12(j) is never voluntary no matter how a CEO spins it. The SEC forced Radient to either get current with their filings or give up their shares. The word "Offer" in "Offer of Settlement" doesn't mean it was Radient's idea. They had a choice and they decided that wiping out RXPC shareholders was preferable to filing the missing financials.
AMDL is a subsidiary now?
If so, and AMDL is operating, that is bad news for RXPC shareholders. There would therefore be no reason to spend any money on Radient to resurrect that voided corporation or register RXPC shares again. Nobody needs Radient to exist if AMDL is operating without Radient.
Fortunately, there is no truth to the claim that AMDL is operating. AMDL is dead, just as NuVax is dead.
AMDL has no assets -- DR-70 is off patent now and DR-70 was the only asset AMDL had. NuVax still has CIT if you want to call that an asset. Radient didn't want to call it an asset -- they wrote it off as worthless in the 2011 10k and took a full loss on that piece of IP.
I realize that some claim that Radient is a "clean shell" so a takeover entity needs Radient to exist in order to get listed on the pinksheets. The problem with that statement is: Radient Pharmaceuticals is NOT a clean shell. "Clean" means no debt and current with SEC filings. Radient is as unclean as a shell can get.
Radient's one and only asset: a 5 billion share A/S. Unfortunately, all 5 billion shares were issued and outstanding when shares were revoked. In the UNLIKELY event that Radient ever rises from these cold ashes, the entity reanimating the corpse would wipe out the 5 billion O/S and use the 5 billion A/S to raise new financing.
In other words: If there really is a secret plan to resurrect RXPC, the previous shareholders are NOT part of the plan. Sorry.
If Amarantus was involved with Radient in any way, that would be a VERY bad thing for AMBS shareholders.
Fortunately for AMBS shareholders, there is no truth to this whatsoever. Radient has no dealings with Amarantus or anyone else. Radient is dead.
If AMDL is a "Division" of Radient, then anything AMDL does is "business as usual" for Radient.
The only way AMDL could be operating now without Radient operating is if AMDL is a subsidiary, not a Division.
Perhaps the merger theorists would like to take a Mulligan and switch AMDL back to a subsidiary. No harm no foul.
There are no loose ends.
All ends are tied up in a pretty bow on top of the coffin.
Radient is gone, RXPC shares are gone, and the Aussies are gone. There's nothing more to do except sit around and reminisce.
GCDx may or may not get shut down by the FDA. Doesn't matter as far as RXPC shares are concerned. RXPC shares are gone forever.
David Reese replaced William as CEO of Provista in August 2011.
How did William earn $2 million in October 2012 from selling Provista to Angel Investors? I do not understand this, sorry.
guardiangel you said:
"It wasn't financing William was waiting for, it was the 2 million he was receiving from the angel investors.."
Please explain. You think William earned $2 million from selling Provista to some "angel investors" after he stepped down as CEO?
In other words, the "angel investors" spent $2 million that didn't go on Provista's books - it went into William's pocket?
They weren't "angel investors" then -- what you are describing is William owning Provista stock and selling it to someone else.
I think this is false. I think William had a "Midwest Investor" who promised to invest $2 million but backed out.
This is why we believe Radient won't merge with anyone:
Because Radient has nothing to offer in a merger.
And there are 5 billion shares of RXPC hanging around the company's neck like an anchor. In the REMOTE chance that some entity tried to resurrect Radient Pharmaceuticals, their first step would be to cancel those shares.
Why would an agreement that has nothing to do with ProvistaDX or Radient make a person "believe radient will merge with ProvistaDX?"
That's a head scratcher.
Pity that Andrea Small-Howard is not involved with Radient any more.
biomedreports is still in business? Really? I would have thought their inaccurate "coverage" of Radient would have put an end to biomedreports.
You remember Radient, everyone? The company that said it was insolvent, had its corporation status voided, and had its shares revoked by the SEC? The alleged topic of this message board?
"Quickly" is the ONLY way to look at Bloomberg News.
Bloomberg says Radient's O/S is 1.3 billion. The wolfpack has claimed several times in the past to own a billion shares by themselves.
Amarantus and MemoryDx are not involved with Radient.
Whatever Amarantus and/or MemoryDx do, it will not affect Radient in any way.
Any discussion of Amarantus or MemoryDx belongs on the AMBS board, not here.
DR-70 is off patent.
Anyone using DR-70 today, in clinical studies or otherwise, is doing so without paying a dime to Radient Pharmaceuticals.
Any current or future use of DR-70, therefore, is not evidence that RXPC shares will ever trade again. Radient needs money -- lots of it - and they are not getting any from DR-70 unless they revive their rejected patent application or dream up a new patent application.
They have until the end of December to revive the rejected patent application before its status changes to ABANDONED.
It's true that even if Provista was using DR-70, it would not help RXPC shareholders because they would be using it without paying Radient a penny.
But that's a given. It's no fun to discuss that -- it's not even an arguable point.
Whether or not Provista actually IS using DR-70 is an arguable point. I don't see evidence of that but I would like to see that evidence if it exists. That would be interesting. I don't see how it would help Provista market their BT test because they claim the test is specific to breast cancer, and DR-70 is not specific to any cancer -- I think it would hurt their chances of getting FDA clearance, to be honest.
I also would like to see the Aussies surface somewhere. That would a fun discussion topic.
Meanwhile, my 10 shares of RXPC are getting cold in the grave. *Brrrrrr* so cold.
The bottom line is that GCDx's Lung Cancer test *is* DR-70 and nothing else.
And GCDx is selling it off-patent so it does NOT benefit Radient in any way.
And Provista removed their lung cancer test from their pipeline and has shown no interest in bringing it back.
DR-70 doesn't break down proteins.
guardiangel, you said:
"When DR-70 was used to breakdown the proteins, it gave more reliable results."
Why do you think DR-70 breaks down proteins? Cite your evidence. The patent description and everything written everywhere that I can find contradicts your statement, so please reveal why you say this.
The proteins are labeled. They are: IL-8, IL-12, VEGF, CEA, and HGF. it's in the ASCO Abstract from 2013. That is the Provista Biomarker Assay (PBA).
http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/119603-135
As for labeling the autoantibodies, that is irrelevant because FDP's are not autoantibodies (Aabs). "We analyzed 134 prospectively collected patient serum samples for a variety of autoantibody targets."
http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/136875-151
I am NOT saying that Provista should "specify its TRADE SECRETS to existing and potential future studies in order to give competitors an upper hand advantage." I am saying that a scientific study doesn't hide trade secrets. Nobody can publish a study and leave out detauils about what they used in the study.
If Provista's studies involved the detection of FDP's they would say so.
And the use of DR-70 in a study is not a trade secret. Many scientific studies use DR-70 and they all state that in the abstract.
dcspka you said:
"Bingo- case closed."
Which case is closed? There has been no evidence showing that Provista is using Radient's DR-70. Their abstracts are conspicuously missing any evidence of DR-70.
Provista is not going to publish study results and omit part of the study. If they use DR-70 they are going to explain how they used it. The lack of that explanation proves that they have not used it in the studies published in 2013 and 2014.
If by "case closed" you mean "Provista is not using DR-70 in their breast cancer test," then I agree, the case is closed. Otherwise, saying it's closed does not make it true.
If by "case closed" you mean "Radient is dead, RXPC shares are worthless and will never trade again," then I say "Congratulations, you have achieved enlightenment."
There is no collaboration between Provista and Radient. Merely saying there is a collaboration does not make it true.
Provista is not using Radient's DR-70. Merely saying they are using it does not make it true.
And DR-70 has nothing to do with autoantibodies. I think the Investigative Longs would have better luck arguing that Provista is somehow using CIT in their tests. CIT is closer to autoimmunity than DR-70.
Provista's abstracts do not mention FDP, fibrin, fibrinogen or anything related to FDP's, fibrin, or fibrinogen. This lack of documentation cannot be explained by saying "It's being kept a secret." Provista is not using a secret sauce of horseradish and rabbit fibrinogen.
DR-70 does not break proteins down.
DR-70 measures the amount of the fragments of protein breakdown. It does not break proteins down.
DR-70 is a test. It is not an FDP, it is not a protein, and it does not break down proteins.
Capiche?
dcspka you said:
"Its evident that Radient and DR-70 is important to the present direction Provista is taking in the development of their products. "
How is that evident? Be specific. The evidence I see all points to the exact opposite: that Radient and DR-70 are absolutely Unimportant to Provista.
Provista is not using Radient's DR-70.
If I am wrong about that, please provide evidence. Saying "there is no evidence because it's a secret" doesn't work for me, sorry. Provista's abstracts would describe how their studies detected FDP's if they were using DR-70. They couldn't hide that.
It really is that simple.
PDX is NOT using DR-70 to break down the 5 protein biomarkers used by Provista Diagnostics. Their abstracts do not describe this in any way, shape, or form and Radient's documentation doesn't say anything about DR-70 being able to break down proteins.
goldseeker did not say that, I did.
guardiangel you said:
"Did you know that Provista was named from the word Protein?"
That is not relevant to the question "how is Provista using DR-70?"
you said:
"What does vista mean you ask? "
Nobody asked.
you said:
"Dr-70 is used to break down the proteins in the other 5 protein bio markers as well. "
Where do you get that? Please provide documentation. According to Radient's expired patent, DR-70 doesn't break down proteins. It measure FDP's which specifically means the byproducts of fibrin breakdown. I don't see any proof that it measure anything related to the five proteins measured by Provista's BT Test.
Please try again. How is Provista's BT Test using DR-70?
FDP's are not blood proteins, they are the product of the degradation of blood proteins.
I guess you could twist the word "protein" to include D-Dimer and other FDP's just as you can twist the word "serum" to mean different things but bottom line, Provista's test does not measure fibrinogen or fibrin or D-Dimer or any other FDP that I can tell:
http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/119603-135
"Provista Diagnostics has developed a test that analyzes serum concentrations of 5 protein biomarkers in order to detect breast cancer. The dtectDx Breast test utilizes a proprietary algorithm that has been described previously (Weber et al. 2010)...... Methods: The dtectDx Breast test measures the concentrations of IL-8, IL-12, VEGF, CEA, and HGF via ELISA."
But I'm hoping the Investigative Longs can explain how Provista's test uses DR-70.
I would love to see Radient's 10K's for 2012 and 2013 and a disclosure of the current debt.
Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever see ANYTHING from Radient again, in any shape or form. If the Australians market their salive version of DR-70 in Australia or China, it won't have anything to do with the US corporation of Radient and it won't have anything to do with RXPC shares.
So any talk of a merger or takeover or resurrection is just wishful thinking and fantasizing, IMO. No harm in dreaming at this point - the damage is done. But soon Provista will be eliminated as the savior -- the merger fantasy is going to need a new savior. I suggest Astellas. It's a plug-n-play sort of fantasy and Astellas plugs in as well as anyone.
How is Provista's BT Test using Radient's DR-70? That is the question.
guardiangel you said:
"Provista is and has been testing DR-70 since 2010"
I see evidence that they tested it in 2010 and possibly 2011 but not since then. Please show your proof of Provista tesating DR-70 after 2011. Looks to me like they abandoned DR-70.
"Matter of fact DR-70 is a fibrin degradation Product(FDP).."
No, DR-70 is a test that detects FDP's. DR-70 is not a FDP.
"It clearly is a protein test"
Technically you *could* say that "DR-70 is a protein test" in that it detects a byproduct of the breakdown of a protein (fibrin) but it's very different from Provista's BPA. Here's a description of Provista's BPA from one of the abstracts:
"Provista Diagnostics has developed a test that analyzes serum concentrations of 5 protein biomarkers in order to detect breast cancer."
Those five protein biomarkers s Provista's test are: IL-8, IL-12, VEGF, CEA, and HGF. Not D-Dimer, Not fibrin, not firbrinogen.
So how, then, is Provista's BT Test using Radient's DR-70? Provista's BPA measures five proteins, none of them fibrinogen or fibrin. FDP's are not autoantibodies. Please explain what part of those abstracts describes Radient's DR-70 because I do not see it. Thanks in advance.