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.
We know GCDX is NOT being used as a deception. GCDx is exactly what it appears to be.
If GCDx was a deception, that would mean Gartner is lying in the interviews, lying on Fundable, lying in his Arizona filings, and lying in his public responses to investor questions. Impossible, IMO -- there is no reason whatsoever for Gartner to lie in that manner.
Any tests sold by GCDx will be done independently from Radient. GCDx has no license agreement or contract with Radient.
As for Genway and/or GCDx purposely filing a trademark application with the intent of having it get rejected... that makes no sense at all. The simple answer is: "The Lung Cancer Test" is too generic a name to receive a trademark.
Radient still has a trademark for the name "Onko-Sure" but that doesn't matter. "Onko-Sure" was such a failure for Radient that anyone trying to sell the test now should distance themselves as far as possible from the name "Onko-Sure," IMO. I think Gartner is going out of his way to hide the fact that he is simply trying to sell DR-70.
I tried contacting the new Officers at every email address I can find for them, including the one Mr. MacLellan gave me.
No response.
I don't own many shares but I am a shareholder. I think this is unforgivable. If the company is dead, fine, let the shareholders know.
The argument that "no information is available because the Takeover Group needs to Operate in Secrecy" is absolute nonsense. There is no information available because this company is dead, IMO.
I wish the new Officers had the decency to give us all closure. I'm quite sure that all 5 billion shares are in the hands of retail traders who would be happy at this point to claim the loss on 2014 taxes.
The fat lady sang when Radient released the 8k saying they were insolvent and share registration was being revoked and the last two Officers were resigning, handing the company over to the Australians.
The curtain fell when shares actually got revoked.
Months later, a half-dozen of us are now sitting in an empty theater. The "Investigative Longs" say the actors are coming back onstage for an encore. I say the actors went home long ago, but I'm hanging around to see just how long the "Investigative Longs" will stay in their seats.
Disagree, but we'll never know!
I think the new Radient Officers would never be able to file without both MacLellan and Aiura helping. And those two would not help without getting paid.
One thing's for sure -- the corporation needs to be reinstated first, as you said.
But I think the fact that MacLellan has not communicated with new management since resigning means they've accomplished nothing. Maybe they sorted the paperwork in manila folders.
"except for activities and expenses related to preserving the Corporate entity, all activity has been suspended pending obtaining additional funding."
And Radient never obtained additional funding after April 2012 - they would have had to file an 8k if they did.
"As a result, the Company’s monthly cash requirement has decreased to approximately $40,000 per month."
The UNI Agreement, while it was effective, gave Radient only $100,000 per year.
This is why Radient didn't pay the Patent Lawyers or the FDA fees or the Business License in California.
Radient would need MacLellan's input to gather the data for those missing SEC filings.
MacLellan said he has had no communication with the new Radient since he resigned all his management posts in April 2014.
That means Radient has done nothing with the missing SEC filings since April.
The Takeover Rumor needs to figure out a way around the missing Radient SEC Filings because those will never be filed, IMO. As livinginsv says -- insurance paid for the class action settlement but insurance won't pay for those missing filings.
This is unfortunate because I would LOVE to see those missing SEC financial statements. They would answer the questions about Radient's debt. Yes, Radient said "we are insolvent," but a financial statement would tell us just how bad it is.
If Gartner is still an Executive VP at Provista, why isn't he listed on Provista's "Executive Management" page?
http://provistadx.com/ProvistaDx-Management.html
I think LinkedIn is a horrible source for DD. I don't think Gartner has any position at Provista now. I also think he is telling the truth when he says he has no personal or business relationship with Radient Pharmaceuticals.
That is not what I claim.
I claim that LC Sentinel was Provista's re-packaging of the DR-70 reagents that detect fibrin and fibrinogen. LC Sentinel used Radient's reagents, not a combination of Radient's reagents and some magic beans that Provista had laying around.
http://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/9163/radient-pharmaceuticals-and-provista-announce-introduction-of-new-diagnostic-lung-cancer-test-9163.html
"The study completed the requisite analyses needed to validate Provista's test, based on Radient's antigens for fibrinogen degradation products (FDP), which successfully detect lung cancer with a high degree of accuracy, according to the companies."
"The study included men and women between 20-76 years of age and showed consistent findings with previous tests, producing positive clinical performance marks of 87% sensitivity, 95% specificity, and an ROC Accuracy of 0.97.
According to Provista, the study will now serve as the cornerstone of its efforts to introduce a new lung cancer detection test called LC Sentinel to the market."
That's DR-70, wolfie. Nothing else.
But just for fun, let's pretend that LC Sentinel was a combination of DR-70 and some Provista magic beans as you claim. DR-70 is off patent now. That STILL does not involve Radient. Gartner might be paying Provista some royalties or licensing fees for the magic beans but he is not paying Radient anything for DR-70. First of all, Radient does not exist at the moment. Second, DR-70 is off patent so Gartner can use it for free even if Radient did exist.
Gartner doesn't work for Provista, IMO.
The only place there is a reference to Gartner still holding a position at Provista is a LinkedIn page. We've proven several times that LinkedIn is not 100% accurate. And what is an Executive VP anyway? Gartner is not listed on any of Provista's recent filings.
If Gartner didn't get the IP by paying $6000 to Radient, he got it from Provista when he resigned from Provista and created GCDx. However he got the IP, he has it now, and silly or not, Gartner is moving forward with his plans to sell DR-70 through GCDx.
Starting GCDx didn't cost much money. I haven't seen any evidence that GCDx has spent much money on anything. Yet. Submitting a 510(k) would be a significant expense. I will be surprised if/when GCDx gets the money for that.
Trademarks don't matter. Trademarks only stop someone else from using that name or picture or slogan. Who cares what he calls it or why he abandoned the first name (it was because they rejected the application, wolfie, you posted the link yourself in the past). Bottom line, the Trademark for Gartner's test is the least significant thing here. The patent is all that matters. Without a patent, Radient has no assets and can never rise from the ashes, IMO.
It doesn't matter whether Provista cancelled that agreement or not. DR-70 is now off patent. Without patent protection that agreement is worthless.
Assume that this Provista 5-year agreement was never cancelled and assume that you want to manufacture and sell DR-70 today. Nobody has protected intellectual property to take into court and stop you.
Nobody can stop Gartner from doing this at GCDx either.
The problem is.... DR-70 has failed to turn a profit since Radient first tried marketing it in Brazil in 1995. IMO, the test isn't getting better or more relevant with age -- it's getting more obsolete.
Everyone now "has all rights to use DR-70 at no cost to them" because DR-70 is now off patent.
I don't know whether Gartner is an Executive VP at Provista or what that title even means but none of that matters. Who cares why Gartner started up GCDx or why he stepped down as Provista CEO or why Provista dropped the lung cancer test? The fact is:
DR-70 is currently off patent. Anyone can manufacture and sell DR-70 now without paying any royalties or fees or payments to Radient.
That one fact kills the Radient takeover rumor. Or at least it should -- the Radient takeover rumor seems to be immortal. Facts don't kill it and logic doesn't kill it.
What silver bullet will kill the Radient Takeover Rumor? I am fascinated by this. The patent rejection should have been enough. Add all these bullets:
-> Gartner states that he has no professional or personal relationship with Radient.
-> MacLellan states that he left all his management positions with Radient in April and has not communicated with them since.
-> Provista states that none of their diagnostics use DR-70.
-> GCDx is actively moving forward with their business plan to sell DR-70 without any merger or takeover.
-> UNI is manufacturing and selling DR-70 in Asia while Radient lies dormant.
-> Radient management said in their last 8k that Radient is insolvent (after three years of alleged reverse merger activity).
That's a lot of silver bullets, yet the Takeover Rumor lives on. Fascinating.
guardiangel you said:
"Look for Provista and GCDX via William making an announcement of a PDX and GCDX merger and a reverse merger into Radient.."
I think the chances of that happening are astronomically poor. But, I will "look" for it. I've been "looking" for the Radient reverse merger since the rumor started in March 2011.
There seems to be a misconception about "LC Sentinel" though. LC Sentinel was just another name for Radient's DR-70 reagents. There is no magical "combination of LC Sentinel and DR-70."
Gartner is planning to sell DR-70. He is citing DR-70 test data from 2010 and 2011 and apparently doing one new study although details about this "new study" are suspiciously absent. I will be surprised if GCDx ever gets off the ground but I am "looking" for that too.
The 6K was the money Gartner gave to Radient to get the IP for DR70. Provista had nothing to do with that.
That is how Gartner got his hands on the IP that he is now using to manufacture and sell DR-70. Gartner is still calling it "The Lung Cancer Test" on his website and on Fundable.com. In the PR (link below) he is calling it "The Lung Cancer Test for Early Detection."
http://ktar.com/22/1760233/Phoenix-company-developing-test-for-early-lung-cancer-detection
The USPTO rejected his request for a Trademark on "Lung Cancer Test" so he abandoned that name, and now he's trying a different name in his PR, but who cares what he calls it and who cares what name, if any, he finally gets Trademarked? The point about GCDx is: Provista is not involved and Radient is not involved. Gartner is on his own and he does not have much funding -- he's hosting on GoDaddy, he's using PayPal to accept credit cards, whoever is building his website is an amateur by allowing test pages to appear to the public, and GCDx is trying to get money through crowdsourcing (Fundable). Everything about GCDx screams "mom and pop."
Now the GCDx clickable link to "order one right through our store" goes to a 404 error File Not Found. That GCDx website is a farce.
The facts say "no takeover." Wishful thinking says "there has to be a takeover because MacLellan has options priced at 11 cents." This will continue for three more months but on or before the end of 2014, the following will have occurred:
1. The patent application will change status to ABANDONED.
2. The new Provista website will undoubtedly be online without any mention of Radient or GCDx.
How will the Takeover rumor adapt to accommodate those new uncomfortable facts? No worries mate, the takeover rumor will apparently never die -- it's managed to get past far more damaging facts than those. When a rumor is based on absurdity there's no killing it.
I repeat:
1. GCDx changed their "Order" page.
2. They still do not mention Radient anywhere on the website.
3. It looks like they are going to charge $99 for DR70.
That's what I said and nothing more, but I'll repeat it in a numbered list if that aids comprehension.
Of course GCDx is not going to call their test "DR70" or "onko-sure." Radient failed abysmally with the DR70 and onko-sure names -- even if Gartner *could* call it DR70 or onko-sure, he most certainly would not. He's putting lipstick on the pig and calling it "the Lung Cancer Test for Early Detection."
I hope nobody is refuting the idea that Gartner's test is DR70 and nothing more. Gartner used the test data for DR-70 in his PR and Fundable descriptions.
Oh, I also said "I wonder what the FDA will think of GCDx trying to sell DR70 now." the link I provided has the sentence:
" CLICK HERE to order one right through our store,"
And the link leads to a checkout page. Yes, the preceding sentence says "This site is for testing only at this time." But that is very amateurish -- the FDA will probably look at that with suspicion. A professional company would NEVER put a test page online where the public can see it. The only excuse GCDx can offer the FDA is "we are rookies and poorly funded, we don't know any better."
IMO, everything about the GCDx website screams "mom and pop." There are no deep pockets behind GCDx -- if they had funding they wouldn't be embarrassing themselves on Fundable, they'd hire a real web app developer, they would NOT be using PayPal to charge credit cards, and they would NOT put test pages online in that manner.
There is no Radient takeover behind GCDX, in other words. Gartner is doing this on his own.
GCDx changed their Test Order page.
http://globalcancerdx.com/Order.html
They plan to sell DR70 for $99, it appears. I notice there is no mention of Radient whatsoever. Does everyone agree now that GCDx is operating without any involvement or relationship with Radient?
I tried to get as far through the process as I could - it bombed a couple of steps in with an error message "We are unable to calculate shipping rates for the selected items."
I wonder what the FDA is going to say about this.
Charter must be a busy man, indeed. Too busy to make one of his websites functional or acknowledge that RXPC shareholders exist or update the USPTO Agent and Contact Information for the rejected patent.
He has a Tweet account but he has never sent a Tweet. Busy, busy, busy. Nobody even knows which continent he calls home.
I wonder if Radient will try to raise money the way GCDx and eWellness are trying to raise money -- GCDx on Fundable.com, eWellness on EquityNet:
https://www.equitynet.com/c/ewellness-corporation
Bill Gates can buy Radient.
It is possible. It is an option. Unlikely though.
Radient's rejected patent application can be "reinstated." It is possible. It is an option. Here's why it, too, is unlikely:
1. K&L Gates, the patent lawyers, resigned because Radient stopped paying them. There is no agent of record now. Who would submit the request? Since K&L Gates was not being paid, it's unlikely they gave the Rejection Letter to Radient.... How could the Australians respond to the Action Letter if they don't have it?
2. The USPTO has no way to contact Radient. Any communication the USPTO has sent or will send to Radient is being returned to the USPTO as Undeliverable.
3. The application was rejected twice. I doubt the new Management will spend money to try and get that application approved after it was rejected twice.
But yes, "reinstatement" is an option. After the application is ABANDONED it can't be reinstated though, so the clock is ticking. Six months after the rejection Action Letter was mailed is December 24, 2014. That's the date it will change to ABANDONED.
MacLellan can say for sure what his role is with Radient Pharmaceuticals. He said it already. He has no role with Radient and has had no contact with Radient since he resigned all his management positions in April 2014.
I expect PDx to never mention Radient in any way, not on their website, not in their PR's, not anywhere.
I expect GCDx to never mention Radient in any way, not on their website, not in their PR's, not anywhere.
I expect the Radient Diagnostics website to never be updated.
"Shortly" and "Soon" have come and gone -- it's been five months since the new management took over -- their silence speaks volumes.
The next piece of Radient "news" will be the rejected patent application status changing to "abandoned." After that... nothing.
SRL never signed an agreement with Radient. That means SRL is NOT a big thing for Radient. SRL is not ANY thing for Radient.
SRL can get the tests from UNI without involving Radient. If SRL sells the test, Radient gets nothing from the sale. Therefore, it doesn't matter to SRL whether Radient exists or not.
I do not expect a reply from Mr. Charter.
I sent him another email asking questions and asking whether someone could please put up a "Coming Soon" page on Wordpress just so RXPC shareholders knew there was still hope.
I don't think that Radient website is "Coming Soon" or coming EVER. I think it's pretty clear that the new Radient Officers and Directors are NOT going to restructure, resuscitate, revive, or reorganize RXPC.
But the takeover rumor, for some fantastic reason, lives on. The takeover rumor became absurd in 2011 when Radient admitted their Jade holding was worth zero instead of $20 million. It's only gotten more absurd since then. Yet we still talk about it. Fascinating, isn't it?
We have proof that MacLellan is gone, Radient has NOT paid off their debt (see the definition of "insolvent" in any dictionary), and Radient's only marketable product is off patent with no pending patent applications... I guess we now wait for the rejected patent application status to change to "Abandoned?" Will that put the takeover rumor to rest? Is that the only thing keeping the rumor on life support?
When is the last time Radient had a President? I see Mr. MacLellan listed his title as "President, CEO & Chairman" in the 2011 10k but he hasn't been paid any kind of salary since 2011 and he dropped "President" from his Title in the 2013 SEC filings.
I can give you several examples but only one is really needed. How about the UNI agreement in 2013?
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000121390013003078/f8k061113_radientpharm.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000121390013003193/f8k061113a1_radient.htm
Notice under MacLellan's signature:
Title: Chairman & CEO
not "President, Chairman, and CEO."
Bottom line: If MacLellan says in an email "I resigned all of my management and Board positions on April 30, 2014 and have had no contact with the Company since that date," then you can take that to the bank because that is not a Safe Harbor statement -- he didn't say "expects" or "anticipates," he stated that as fact.
MacLellan left Radient completely and utterly. Anyone refuting this claim simply needs to send an email to MacLellan to get that response.
And calling MacLellan a liar in this public forum is libel.
Yes I told him he was incorrectly listed as President of Radient on Bloomberg.
But I doubt he cares. Nobody with market savvy takes the RXPC page on Bloomberg seriously. RXPC doesn't come up in a ticker search on Bloomberg and when you do manage to find their RXPC page by first finding the German page, it shows the O/S as 1.35 billion:
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/RXPC:US
In conclusion: An investor would have to be remarkably naïve to believe the Bloomberg information about Radient. Unfortunately, for those naïve few, the internet contains all kinds of misleading and false stock information.
I choose to believe SEC filings, which means I believe Radient is insolvent, RXPC shares are revoked, and the only Officers and Board Members are the four Australians. I also believe the lack of Schedule 13's proves there is no takeover. But, SEC filings are not for everyone -- they prove too confusing for some.
'Twas ever thus.
Incidentally, if you doubt the validity of MacLellan's email response, ask him yourself. I'm sure he will answer. I think he is eager to distance himself from Radient Pharmaceuticals. As for Mr. Charter responding -- unlikely, IMO.
I also got a response from Mr. MacLellan. I emailed him at the maclellangroup address. I asked him if he was President of Radient as Bloomberg states. I also asked about the future of Radient Pharmaceuticals.
dcspka, you must have received the same response, as will anyone else who emails Mr. MacLellan. I think Mr. MacLellan wants this information to be public so I will post it:
Dear Mr. xxxx:
I resigned all of my management and Board positions on April 30, 2014 and have had no contact with the Company since that date. You should contact Dennis Charter the current CEO. I have copied him on this e-mail.
Best Regards,
Douglas.
What are "normal business hours" for Dennis Charter, CEO of Radient Pharmaceuticals? On which continent is he located?
According to Whois, Mr. Charter's website www.ebank.ac is based in Hong Kong. How many websites does Mr. Charter have? How many businesses is he trying to run?
He is able to keep a placeholder page alive for these two businesses:
http://www.ebank.ac/
http://dennischarter.com/
Why can't he upload a placeholder web page for radient-diagnostics.com? It appears that of these three businesses, the Radient business is the lowest priority.
Same result when I sent an email to dmaclellan@radient-pharma.com -- it bounced back within five minutes with this error:
The domain name of the email address is not valid
Check the "radient-pharma.com" part of the email address for misspellings or missing letters.
Anyone who doubts this can try it themselves.
Radient-pharma is dead. I don't think MacLellan is President, I don't think there is any current attempt to restructure or reorganize Radient, and I don't think RXPC shares will ever trade again.
I don't believe message-board "Investigative Longs" who say otherwise and I don't believe what CEO's say in emails or PR's or interviews. I only believe what I read in SEC filings. I believe Radient Pharmaceuticals is insolvent and their stock registration is revoked because that's what the company stated in their final 8K.
The odds of rising from THOSE ashes are astronomically poor. I think that anyone who read that 8K and still held onto RXPC stock does not understand the stock market.
This is all fun and games emailing MacLellan and trying to track down Charter and thinking wishfully on message boards, but I don't see how RXPC could be deader than this. "Insovlent" is not a vague word. It is a specific word. And Stock Registration Revocation is not a vague concept.
Please post it here.
He said he wasn't President of Radient, didn't he?
I think you should email him again and ask when your RXPC shares are going to be worth 11 cents.
update -- my email to radient-pharma.com bounced back after 10 minutes.
Here is the error message:
"The domain name of the email address is not valid. Check the 'radient-pharma.com' part of the email address for misspellings or missing letters."
So "Dougie Mac" is not going to reply from radient-pharma.com -- not that I think he is going to reply, period.
I think Bloomberg should update their info anyway. Mr. Cheezepuff is doing just as much at Radient as anyone else.
I just sent a test email to cheezepuff@radient-pharma.com. It didn't bounce back - it "went thru."
Try it yourself.
That tells me something as to who is actually calling the shots at Radient. Somebody better tell Bloomberg to update their info. I think Mr. Cheezepuff is the new CEO but I'll wait to hear back from him.
"Ah, Mr. Cheezepuff, we meet again. But this time, the advantage is mine."
Who really cares about William and GCDx? They have nothing to do with Radient and RXPC. Anyone who wants to invest in William and GCDX can just go to Fundable and do it and RXPC won't be involved.
All this old anecdotal history about Radient and Provista and Gartner from 2011 or 2009 or WHENEVER is just pudding. Currently, RXPC is revoked and the Radient corporation is voided and there's no evidence of anyone trying to change that.
The odds against RXPC shares ever being worth anything ever again, even .0001, are insurmountable. A lottery ticket would be a much better bet.
GA you said:
"Don't you find it strange that the skeptics can't find Radient's new assay...Matter of fact, they can not even find Provista's assay via William Gartner."
Radient doesn't have a new assay. I can't find what doesn't exist.
And nobody can find active Radient patents or patent applications because they don't exist either.
And why look for Provista assays? They would have nothing to do with Radient or RXPC. Provista is not involved with, working with, or planning to work with or take over Radient.
Throwing pudding around is fine if that's how a person wants to spend his or her time, but I am looking for the meat in this takeover rumor and there is none. Just pudding.
This pudding about secret patents contain no proof. There is no such thing as a "secret patent." If a patent application was re-opened it would not have the status "LAPSED."
Radient did not apply for a patent in Australia in 2011, despite what Radient's CEO said in a press release. If Radient had applied for a patent in 2011 the Australian patent system would show it.
Radient has no active patents or patent applications for DR70/onko-sure anywhere in the world (except maybe Japan). To refute this, cite a patent number or patent application number that is active. The lack of that citation is an admission that such a patent or patent application doesn't exist.
A CEO can say things while standing on the bridge of his warship, but when that ship is anchored in Safe Harbor, his comments have to be taken lightly. The Radient CEO said many things in PR's that never came true. To his credit, only one Class Action arose from those PR's.
But the Radient warship isn't anchored any more -- it sunk. It's laying on the bottom of Safe Harbor now. And the rats have left the ship -- who knows what continent the rats inhabit now.
Let's clear up the skepticism.
Please cite the Australian patent application number for the Radient patent application that is still active.
Failure to do this is an admission that there isn't one.
the Radient-Diagnostics site is WordPress. No company that wants to be taken seriously uses WordPress. I don't understand why they would change "Coming Soon" to BROKEN but you may be right -- Perhaps they were tired of Investigative Longs and Lenders trying to contact them. Nice point about the AMDL site.
I doubt we will ever see another Radient website. IMO, if we ever see anything again it will be a new business venture for some kind of "Cancer Saliva Test" site in Hong Kong or Australia, and the name Radient will probably be conspicuously absent.
I think the lenders accepted their fate long ago. When they threatened spoilage lawsuits and Mac responded with a threat of bankruptcy, I think they realized they'd been had.
I will be shocked if GCDx ever sells a single DR70 test. "Fundable" seems like a last-ditch financing effort to me. I doubt a VS will ever get done. The lack of a patent makes the Lung Cancer Test a poor risk for private investors, IMO.
The CEO of GCDx has forecast a DR70 sales launch date at least four times that I know of -- all have passed... A CEO's job is to placate shareholders and press the flesh and say optimistic things to reporters and journalists, all while standing on the Bridge of a docked boat in Safe Harbor. "Coming Soon... anticipate..... expect...." All pudding.
The lack of proof is in *this* kind of pudding!
What is the Australian patent application number of this "Australian Patent" we are waiting for?
If there is an active patent or patent application in Australia it would have a patent application number. I don't believe there is one but I welcome being proven wrong.
Anyone Anywhere can use Radient's DR70 at will. The lack of patents dictates this. Provista has no interest in doing so and Jade couldn't get regulatory approval in China but UNI-Pharma *is* using Radient's DR-70 at will right NOW. Who could dispute that?
The one place I'm not sure about is Japan, and I say that only because I can't verify whether any patent information in Japan. Everywhere else, it's easy to verify: Radient has no patents anywhere for the DR70/onko-sure test.
Anyone wanting to dispute this needs only to cite an active patent number or patent application number.
Radient Pharmaceuticals does not have an active patent application in Australia.
CEO's say things that can be misconstrued and misinterpreted. Bottom line: if there is an active patent application for onko-sure or DR70 in the Australian patent system, what is the patent application number?
It doesn't matter what the Radient CEO said in a 2011 press release. If Radient had submitted a patent application in 2011 it would show up in the Australian PTO System. It's not there. Maybe he was talking about the Dirks/Charter/Brown application, maybe he was talking about an application they were working on, maybe he got the countries wrong, who knows, but the fact is, Radient Pharmaceuticals does not have an active patent application in Australia.
Not that it matters to the new Radient Officers and Directors. Nobody else is going to try to manufacture or sell DR70 in Australia or New Zealand. They have nothing to worry about except: nobody has been successful selling the test since it was first marketed in Brazil in 1996.
I think the most interesting info on the Aussie patent application regarding Onko Sure is the following:
"LAPSED"
Very telling.
Radient site is NOT "intentionally not up." That error message is not intentional.
GCDx website is up -- look on the "About Us" page - they updated that page with the BusinessWire PR.
Provista website, when it changes, is not going to mention Radient.
Fortis does not know the "Investigative Long Shareholders" exist. One of the "Investigative Longs" should contact Fortis and remind them that they are taking over Radient Pharmaceuticals.
And the Radient Shareholders, market-wise savvy investors that they are, will reject the first offer.
Nothing less than 11 cents a share, right?
It's great that the wise men of this MB have figured out the details of the Radient Takeover.
The next step for these "go to guys" is to contact SRL, UNI, Fortis, Provista, the Australians, and William Gartner and explain the details to THEM.....
Because I'm quite certain these entities are not aware of this takeover of Radient.
Pudding is one word for it, I guess.
Any email that SRL sent regarding Radient or CIT is in the public domain. A company that sends an email to a non-employee has to assume that the email will be shared, copied, forwarded, distributed, and reprinted. It's in the public domain.
If SRL is "developing" CIT and they divulged that in an email to a RXPC shareholder or anyone else in the world, it's no longer private. But there must be a miscommunication in that email thread -- SRL must not have understood the question, because there is simply no way that CIT is being developed by anyone, anywhere.