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.
Radient is still in business?
How is Radient still in business with a void corporation, no office space, no website, and no way to contact the company? Even if I wanted to buy DR70 from them and sell it somewhere, I couldn't find them.
Forget the revoked shares (I have). Let's focus on the idea that Radient is still in business. On what continent is this happening?
The SEC filing from 2012 that describes the UNI agreement states that the Agreement terminates when the last DR70 patent expires. That hapopened. The agreement is terminated. UNI is not paying Radient anything and never will again. The DR70 patent is going to change to ABANDONED in a few months.
Provista website will make it official soon, as per their promise to give us a "new corporate look," that they are not involved with Radient or RXPC or onko-sure or DR70 or CIT or SRL or UNI-Pharma.
When the Provista website is updated and there is no mention of RXPC or Radient or SRL or UNI, what does that mean for the takeover theory? How will the RXPC takeover theory be adjusted when Provista is removed from the equation?
SRL is not developing CIT. Nobody is developing CIT. Radient wrote off CIT as worthless at the end of 2010. There is no evidence anywhere that CIT is anything but dead and dormant.
Radient bought CIT in the year 2000 and didn't try to develop it until 2010 when they hired Dr. Chang, the inventor, to work on it under NuVax. After just one month NuVax abandoned CIT, Radient declared it worthless, and NuVax started working on Dr. Chang's newer cancer vaccine. Unfortunately, Radient stopped paying the U of FL and Dr. Chang and Mr. Bhatia, and that project also stopped.
We have determined that CIT is still protected by Radient patent. If SRL is now "developing" CIT, how did SRL get the rights to CIT without Radient releasing an 8K?
Terry Lin and freia Wei do not mention taking over Radient or merging with Radient in this interview.
Uni-Pharma's agreement with Radient has terminated because the last DR70 patent expired. Uni-Pharma may sell DR70 in the future but that will not help RXPC shareholders.
If "SRL is selling the tests to the public and Uni-Pharma is now the distributor..." that means UNI and SRL are working together without being involved in any way with Radient. That means there is no reason for either of them to take over or merge with Radient. This would prove that the takeover rumor is false.
But I don't believe that SRL is selling onko-sure to the public. I am the public -- why can't I buy onko-sure from SRL? Why did they remove it from their website if they are still selling it?
If SRL is selling onko-sure, where can I, the public, buy it?
If "Onko Sure is a very important part of [SRL] moving forward," why did SRL stop selling onko-sure?
SRL is not involved with Radient in any way. SRL never had a license agreement with Radient -- they obtained their DR70 from a different source.
SRL sold DR70 for half price -- $49 a test - and when they ran out they stopped selling DR70 instead of ordering more. I see no reason to believe that SRL today thinks "Onko Sure is a very important part of [SRL] moving forward."
One thing is for certain: if Fortis was interested in taking over Radient, it would have happened.
If Fortis and Provista wanted to merge, we'd have heard about that too. The problem with bringing a big company like Fortis into a creeping takeover rumor is: big companies don't creep.
Since we have now all agreed that the RXPC shares are in the hands of retail investors and there is no organized takeover, I think the comnclusion is inescapable: the new Directors and Officers were appointed by MacLellan and Christiansen and nobody else was involved. There is no secret group pulling the strings. Nobody is watching or auditing the new Officers and Directors. They can do anything they want with Radient's "assets."
The problem is: Radient has minimal assets. Why did the new Officers and Directors come on board? What do they have to gain? There's no money to pay them and no shares to give them. There's not much to sell -- Remember when Dilek Mir was using shareware to produce PDF's for PR's?
I guess it's a cheap way for the new Officers to acquire DR70 for their saliva test in Hong Kong but DR70 as a blood test has dubious value to begin with.... a saliva test would be less valuable. I question whether they will get funding to launch their saliva test.
They could sell DR70 on alibaba.... THAT MUST BE IT! This is a "BABA play!" Too bad the ticker is revoked, I bet someone could tweet "RXPC BABA Play!" and get the PPS back up to .0004 before the crushing selling pressure killed the rally as it killed the "MJ Play" rumors in the past.
The rumor proponents never explained that, did they -- why, if takeover groups owned so many shares, the MJ Play rumors only got the PPS up to .0004 before the rally died each time when the ASK became a bottomless well of RXPC shares.
DR70 is off patent -- if Fortis wants DR70 they have it right now and they don't have to pay Radient a penny in royalties or licensing fees. Remember the argument that Provista had some kind of non-compete clause with Radient that prevented them from using DR70 for five years? SRL has no such clause because SRL never signed anything with Radient.
If Fortis is taking over Radient, where are the Fortis Schedule 13D's? Fortis is a big company -- I seriously doubt they are playing a cat-and-mouse game of "silent partners" and "hidden 4.99% buyout groups." If Fortis wanted Radient they'd snap their fingers and make it so. The odds of anyone taking over Radient now are poor, but the odds of Fortis taking over Radient are astronomically poor.
19 out of 20 developmental biotechs fail. IMO it's absurd to say that Radient is the 1-in-20 that succeeds after the company declared itself insolvent, revoked its shares, and lost all patent protection for its one marginally marketable product.
We know SRL sold onko-sure briefly in 2013 after they acquired a batch of the tests from Bhatia. They sold those tests for half price and when they ran out, SRL removed onko-sure from their product line.
SRL is not selling onko-sure today. That is the link I am asking for. I want proof that SRL is involved with Radient TODAY and/or is selling onko-sure TODAY.
Many companies tried to sell onko-sure in the past and failed. Those old PR's just prove that onko-sure was a failure worldwide. I want to see proof of anyone selling onko-sure today.
"subsidiary of SRL that does sell Onko-Sure..? Here is the company.. SRL Diagnostics Private Limited. "
I seriously doubt that this subsidiary sells Onko-Sure. Please post evidence to support this statement.
It's one thing to say "I think this subsidiary might sell Onko-Sure." Fine, I disagree, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. But to state it as fact requires evidence to back up the statement.
"Looks like there will be no takeover after all.. Just retail shareholders that own 4.5 billion shares of Radient as living and you stress....."
(direct quote from post 25211)
Agreed. But then who appointed the Australians as Directors and Officers of Radient? And if retail shareholders hold 4.5 billion shares -- which means the Australians and Lenders do not own shares -- what motivation do the Australians and/or Lenders have for returning value to the RXPC shares that were revoked?
If the Australians restructure this company, it makes a lot more sense for them to file for bankruptcy, cancel all existing RXPC shares, and issue new shares to the Lenders and/or the White Knight that finances the restructuring.
What has "Rao V. Mulpuri" got to do with Radient or even SRL? I see no connection. Please help me understand the connection with tangible proof.
I also don't understand the statement "We already know SRL is involved in the mix of WG/Provista/Radient Diagnostics." I don't know that, and I don't BELIEVE that. If someone said "We think SRL is involved in the theoretical mix of WG/Provista/Radient Diagnostics," I couldn't argue with that. But to state that as fact is puzzling. It not only is unproven, it is very unlikely that any of those companies are currently involved with Radient Diagnostics or AMDL or Radient Pharmaceuticals.
I love these historical Radient PR's. They are wonderful examples of why you should never trust PR's from developmental biotech CEO's. Thanks for posting it!
Let’s look closer at this AMDL/Radient PR and determine whether this PR passes the sniff test.
“…given its most recent news announcing the monetization strategy for the Company's China-based subsidiary Jade Pharmaceuticals Inc.;” At the time this PR was released, Radient knew that Jade was not cooperating. The “monetization plan” was a dream.
“…focused on the commercialization of AMDL's proprietary Onko-Sure(TM) In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) cancer test;” Because they had nothing else to sell. And even when the company “focused”
on selling DR70, they failed. Gross revenues were only about 10% of operating costs from the time this PR was released until the end of 2011 when the company announced they couldn’t pay their operational bills.
“In addition to today's rebranding announcement, AMDL completed a note and warrant purchase agreement with St. George Investments, LLC in the amount of approximately $555,555 and a bridge loan with Cantone Asset Management in the amount of $58,000.” This is the one piece of meat in this air sandwich. This was the start of the toxic financing. Instead of selling shares in a private placement, MacLellan borrowed money.
“Radient Pharmaceutical is aggressively collaborating with its China-based management team to determine the highest valuation path and plan for the de-consolidation of Jade Pharmaceuticals Inc. (JPI).” How do you “Agressively collaborate?” Wasn’t this agression the very thing that caused Jade to mutiny in the first place?
“MacLellan continued, "Along with our corporate name change, we have restructured our business and are re-classifying Jade Pharmaceuticals as a business asset rather than a core operating arm of the Company.” Unfortunately, the SEC disagreed with this “re-classification.” It took the SEC two years but they eventually delisted RPC because the $20 million Radient claimed this “business asset” was worth turned out to be $0.
“By late 2011 the Company anticipates launching a next generation version of Onko-Sure(TM) ….. The Company anticipates market launch and commercialization of the introductory Elleuxe(TM) product line targeted to women in the luxury market in late Q1FY10 to early Q2FY10.” “Anticipates” is a red-flag Safe Harbor word in biotech. Everything they “anticipated” and “expected” in this PR never happened.
Conclusion: the sniff test score? "It stinks."
It is highly unlikely that anyone will develop CIT anywhere.
Radient hired Dr. Chang to work on CIT in November 2010 and within four weeks Radient abandoned CIT and licensed Dr. Chang's newer work at the Univ of Florida. Doesn't that make it VERY clear that the inventor of CIT (Chang) and the owner of CIT (Radient) thought it was a waste of resources to develop CIT when Dr. Chang's newer work was available?
If Provista wanted an immunotherapy product in their pipeline, they would license Dr. Chang's work at the Univ of Florida instead of developing CIT, IMO. Anyone would after reading Radient's 2010 and 2011 10K's.
That can't be the Cease and Desist that Guardiangel is talking about.
Post 25103 says "The reason the protection was left to die is because of a Cease and Desist order during the litigation of CIT ownership by the Canucks in Alberta." That makes no sense if the Cease and Desist was in 2003 or earlier because the "protection" being discussed was Radient's patent application submitted after 2003.
Provista is not taking over Radient. The lack of Schedule 13's proves that. Provista is not working with Radient or licensing any of their products. They will tell that to anyone who asks.
Therefore, I see no reason to become "more educated on ProvistaDx/Amarantus/LPath because this is the RXPC message board and those are not relevant to RXPC.
I understand what Cease and Desist means. I just don't believe Radient's lawyers told Radient or anyone else that a Cease and Desist was a good idea.
You state as fact that Radient's lawyers told someone to Cease and Desist. I want to see evidence of this. Whom did Radient or Radient's lawyers tell to Cease and Desist? Please post the evidence.
Cease and Desist? Please post the link. Who and what did Radient's lawyers want to "cease and desist?"
Please explain by posting the link. This is interesting. Who was doing something that Radient's lawyers thought they could stop with a "Cease and Desist?"
The CIT timeline since 2010, then, is:
November 2010: Radient forms NuVax to replace the JTI agreement and work on CIT. They hire Chang and Bhatia.
December 2010: Radient says "As of December 31, 2010, we fully impaired the value of our intangible asset related to this technology."
January 2011: Radient signs an agreement with the Univ of FL to license Chang’s newer cancer vaccine technology.
August 2011: Radient says “On August 29, 2011, due to lack of funding and activity, Umesh Batia resigned as CEO and Director of NuVax. As of the date of this report, we have not generated any revenues and incurred license termination fees expenses for NuVax. Until we can complete funding for NuVax, we will continue to have minimal activity in NuVax.” Chang also quits because of non-payment.
That is all from 10K's and 8K's.
So, thanks for the patent number -- I like being proven wrong by FACTS. Radient has a patent for CIT. That does not mean CIT has value, of course -- I think the timeline events above show very clearly that Radient considers CIT to be worthless.
CIT is patent protected then. Thanks for the correction!
I don't understand why Radient wrote off CIT as worthless in 2010. They certainly didn't need another tax writeoff and they only took about $1 million loss for CIT anyway. The patent still had eight years left at that point?
What a strange maneuver *that* was. A chess game with Dr. Chang and/or the University of Florida, or a chess game with the Canadians? The fact remains: Radient wrote off CIT as worthless and abandoned CIT to work on Dr. Chang's newer technology.
Cease and Desist? Please post the link. Who and what did Radient's lawyers want to "cease and desist?"
Please explain by posting the link. This is interesting. Who was doing something that Radient's lawyers thought they could stop with a "Cease and Desist?"
I know about the lawsuits -- I studied them in detail -- but the lawsuits really are moot now because CIT and NuVax were abandoned by Radient in 2011. Look at this timeline:
April 2010: CIT patent application rejected.
November 2010: CIT patent application abandoned.
November 2010: Radient forms NuVax to replace the JTI agreement and work on CIT. They hire Chang and Bhatia.
December 2010: Radient says "As of December 31, 2010, we fully impaired the value of our intangible asset related to this technology."
January 2011: Radient signs an agreement with the Univ of FL to license Chang’s newer cancer vaccine technology.
August 2011: Radient says “On August 29, 2011, due to lack of funding and activity, Umesh Batia resigned as CEO and Director of NuVax. As of the date of this report, we have not generated any revenues and incurred license termination fees expenses for NuVax. Until we can complete funding for NuVax, we will continue to have minimal activity in NuVax.” Chang also quits because of non-payment.
That is all from 10K's, 8K's, and the USPTO website. I can provide the link, and cite the page number, for all of the above. I trust 10K's and 8K's explicitly.
If the University of Alberta or AcuVector won a lawsuit against Radient now, who would care? The plaintiff would receive nothing in either case. That's not opinion, that is fact, based on the facts I have cited from the SEC filings and the USPTO history.
The topic is "does Radient have patent protection for CIT?" The answer is no, CIT is off patent.
Did Radient abandon the CIT patent application after it received a final rejection? The answer is yes, they abandoned that patent application.
The lawsuits are moot. It doesn't matter whether Radient won or lost the AcuVector lawsuit because Radient has no money so they are not paying ANYONE $20 million. It doesn't matter whether Radient won or lost the University of Alberta lawsuit because CIT is worthless.
No, there was no Cease and Desist order from AcuVector or the University of Alberta. That is not what the lawsuits were all about -- the exact opposite is true, in fact. AcuVector was seeking damages and the University of Alberta wanted a cut of the profits if there ever were any profits.
Read page 7 of the 2010 10K:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000114420411032218/v218209_10k.htm
"AcuVector is seeking substantial damages and injunctive relief against Dr. Chang for the effectiveness of the agreement and CDN$20,000,000 in damages against us for alleged interference with the relationship between Dr. Chang and AcuVector." that's not Cease and Desist. They wanted only MONEY from Radient.
"The University has not claimed that we are not the owner of the CIT technology, just that the University has an equitable interest therein or the revenues there from." That's not Cease and desist -- on the contrary, the Univ of Alberta WANTED Radient to develop and market CIT, and then the Canadians wanted a cut of the profits. Radient, therefore, did not abandon the CIT patent application "because of a Cease and Desist order during the litigation of CIT ownership by the Canucks in Alberta."
Who knows exactly why they abandoned the CIT patent application and the DR70 patent applications. Does it matter "Why?" The bottom line: Cit and DR70 are not protected by patent and there isn't a pending patent application for either of them.
Furthermore: Radient does not have patents in China, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, and Brazil for Onko-Sure. If you disagree, cite the patent numbers. If these patents exist, they have patent numbers.
Maybe Radient has something for DR70 in Japan. I don't know because it's too hard to search their patent information. If there's a patent application in Japan, please post the proof.
Radient's CIT is also off patent. I guess Radient doesn't have ANY protected Intellectual Property. I thought they had a CIT patent, but I can't find one. The only one I find is the patent application they mention in their 10K: Patent application 10/785,577 entitled “Combination Immunogene Therapy” that was filed February 23, 2004.
Current status: Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action, Status Date: 10-12-2010
Date, Transaction Description
10-15-2010 Email Notification
10-15-2010 Mail Abandonment for Failure to Respond to Office Action
10-12-2010 Aband. for Failure to Respond to O. A.
04-19-2010 Electronic Review
04-16-2010 Email Notification
04-16-2010 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
04-12-2010 Final Rejection
The 10K shows how Radient lost $86 million in 2011 and $85 million in 2010. it was mostly on interest expense. See page 40 in the 10K:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000114420412037312/v316641_10k.htm
In 2010 a big chunk was from admitting that Jade was worthless -- Radient took a $20 million loss on Jade in 2010. In 2010 they also admitted that CIT was worthless (page 11 of the link above) but that was only about a million dollars:
Due to the following conditions at December 31, 2010, we decided to impair the remaining balance of our CIT asset:
· Lack of any potential future revenue;
· Lack of future cash flows;
· High cost of future clinical studies; and
· Limited time remaining on the patent.
The amount of the impairment was $1,058,333 for the year ended December 31, 2010.
In 2011 they also spent money on NuVax -- see page 11 in the link above, among other pages:
In January 2011, NuVax signed four exclusive license agreements with the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. (“UFRF”), for the development and marketing of a cancer therapeutic product developed by the UFRF. In July 2011, the UFRF terminated the agreements due to lack of funding.
True, I don't know much about Provista, which is probably OK since this is the Radient message board. And I didn't do DD on Provista when I asked them about their use of DR-70.
What I said was: "If they are a holding company, I'm sure they don't hold stock in a pinksheet company that doesn't file financials." I mean RXPC if that's not clear.
No Schedule 13G means Provista does not own more than 4.99% of RXPC. No Schedule 13D means Provista does not own ANY RXPC if they were planning to take over Radient before shares were revoked.
I agree with livinginsv: there will be no Schedule 13's now, after the fact. To be specific, I don't think there will ever be any kind of filing involving RXPC again.
And the theory "the Takeover Group didn't have to file Schedule 13D's when they acquired the shares because one person in each group hadn't decided yet" is laughable. I doubt the SEC has ever heard that excuse.
If the "Takeover Group" doesn't already own the RXPC stock, they can't get it now.
And of they DO own the RXPC Stock and they had plans to take over Radient, they had to file 13D's long ago.
I am waiting for an explanation of "when each individual in the group unanimously decide to takeover Radient." What does that mean? They bought RXPC with the intention of taking over, but one person in each group is still a little undecided about the whole thing?
Do either of these holding companies own RXPC stock? I SERIOUSLY doubt ANY holding company owns RXPC stock.
But regardless -- the topic of discussion is "does Provista own RXPC stock?" and the lack of a 13D means "if they do, it's less than 4.99% and they have no plans to take over Radient Pharmaceuticals." Let's stay on topic, please.
My analysis is "the lack of 13D's proves there is no takeover group planning to take over Radient." Glad to hear that you agree 100% with my analysis.
But you confused me when you said "What the rules state is when each individual in the group unanimously decide to takeover Radient all they have to do at that time is file Schedule 13 D's.."
That is not "what the rules state." What does "each individual in the group unanimously decide to takeover Radient" mean? The Takeover Group that supposedly owns 59% of RXPC shares doesn't have to file Schedule 13D's yet because one employee in each company has not decided to take over Radient yet?
If Provista owned RXPC shares and has been planning some kind of "Creeping Takeover," they would have been required to file the Schedule 13D's within 10 days of obtaining the shares.
So Provista does not own RXPC shares, UNLESS they have no plans to take over Radient, in which case they could own 4.99% without filing a Schedule 13G.
But Provista is not a holding company. I don't think they invest in stocks. If they do, they definitely don't invest in pinksheet stocks of companies that don't report financials.
There is no takeover group of RXPC Shareholders because there are no Schedule 13D's.
That means RXPC shareholders either (a) are not taking over Radient, or (b) are not reporting entities like Provista or the Lenders.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/sched13.htm
"When a person or group of persons acquires beneficial ownership of more than 5% of a voting class of a company’s equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, they are required to file a Schedule 13D with the SEC.
"Schedule 13D reports the acquisition and other information within ten days after the purchase. The schedule is filed with the SEC and is provided to the company that issued the securities and each exchange where the security is traded. Any material changes in the facts contained in the schedule require a prompt amendment."
A group of RXPC Shareholders planning a takeover could not circumvent this rule by limiting each group member's holdings to only 4.99% of the voting class. They would constitute a "group of persons" in the eyes of the SEC and would have to file Schedule 13D's.
4.5 billion shares outstanding was only worth $450,000 before revocation. That's a pittance on Wall Street. I have no doubt that all 4.5 billion shares were owned by amateur investors when shares were revoked. I don't think Professionals have owned RXPC since that 2011 10K was filed because that was an ugly 10K, but IF any professionals owned RXPC when that last 8K was filed, they would have sold immediately. When a company files an 8K saying they are insolvent and they have requested the revocation of their share registration as Radient did, it's over.
If Provista owned RXPC shares -- even 100 shares -- and they were taking over Radient, they would have filed a Schedule 13. They did not.
The lack of this Schedule 13 proves that Provista is not taking over RXPC. So what is the name of this company that is supposedly taking over RXPC then? THEY must have filed a Schedule 13 that I haven't found yet -- I'd like to read it.
Since Radient's DR-70 is off patent, the only logical answer is: Vericyte felt they could not profit from manufacturing and selling DR-70.
Radient never profited from manufacturing and selling DR-70. They lost $85 million a year trying in the last two years they reported earnings.
The only US company that currently thinks they can profit from working with DR-70 is GCDx. The CEO of GCDx says he has no licensing agreement or contract or personal relationship with Radient.
Nobody has to wait 5 years or 5 minutes before they can manufacture and sell DR-70 because DR-70 is no longer protected by a patent.
That is not arguable or debatable. GCDx and UNI are the proof, as if any were needed.
Nobody has to wait until 2017 to manufacture and sell DR-70. Nobody has to wait until 20:17 military time today to manufacture and sell DR-70.
DR-70 is off patent. This is very basic IP law here. Radient has no recourse if, say, GSK started selling DR-70 today.
Incidentally, I do not think "everyone wants to use DR-70." I think only GCDx wants to use DR-70 in the US. Let's clear up THAT misconception right now. I don't think Provista wants to use DR-70. I merely said "it's possible."
I think it is VERY telling that even though DR-70 is off patent, nobody is trying to manufacture or sell it in the US other than GCDx.
DR-70 is off patent.
Nobody has to wait 5 years or 5 minutes to manufacture and sell DR70 now. Granted, they can't call it DR70 or Onko-Sure in the US, but ANYONE, GCDx or Provista or Johnson & Johnson or anyone else, can manufacture and sell DR70 now without licensing the test from Radient or paying Radient royalties.
This is pretty simple copyright law here. And this proves the Radient takeover rumor to be false. Maybe Radient was a takeover candidate in 2011, but the subsequent dilution and loan defaults and delisting and insolvency and share revocation have made the Radient takeover rumor absurd today. ABSURD. There really is no other word for it.
Agree 100%, guardiangel, with your conclusions:
"Bottom Line..William has no money"
"ProvistaDX has the right to use DR-70" (since DR70 is off patent, everyone does)
and let me add one: in William's email reply, he did not deny involvement with Provista -- he only denied involvement with Radient Pharmaceutical.
So it is quite possible that, as you say, William "is developing the LC Test for ProvistaDX and not GCDX unless GCDX will be a division or subsidiary of ProvistaDX..." and it is possible that, as you say, "once the studies are done for the BT Test . provista will roll out the LC Sentinel pipeline again.."
This means Provista has no reason or motivation to merge with or take over Radient -- they can do all of this now without owning, partnering, merging with, or taking over RXPC.
Excellent analysis! Thank you!
I agree with you 100%, dcspka.
You are saying that if a person contacted Provista and asked "Are you involved with Radient Pharmaceuticals in any kind of takeover or merger?" And they said "No," then that proves they are telling the truth. Because if thewy WERE involved, they would say "we can't talk about that."
I agree with you that IF Provista was working with Radient, or taking over Radient, or merging with Radient, they would not be able to talk about it. But officers and employees certainly are not instructed to lie, so if they say "No" they must be telling the truth.
That's why I believed John Fermanis when he said in Feb 2013 "For the umpteenth time, we do not use DR-70 on our diagnostics in any way." If he said "I cannot talk about that," then fine, that probably means they WERE, but that wasn't his answer.
Instead of speculating about what Provista might or might not say, I think a Radient shareholder should contact Provista and ask, and keep asking until they give a definitive answer. Knowledge is power. Power is not given -- it must be taken -- a wise man on this message board said that. Every RXPC shareholder should contact Provista and take some power.
None of the companies at Rodman and Renshaw are going to mention Radient Pharmaceuticals, that's for sure.
It's an "Investor conference" which means none of these companies are going to release anything new at this conference -- no posters, abstracts, trial data, or anything else that you can't find on the company's website.
The PR said that Reese is giving a "corporate overview." Nothing closed door about that. Anyone who is attending the conference can walk right in and hear the pitch.
The BT Test does not include Radient's DR70 -- this PR proves it.
Statements like "Combining serum autoantibody measurements with serum protein biomarkers for the detection of invasive breast cancer" and "Provista Diagnostics currently has multiple randomized prospective trials underway to establish the combined role SPBs and AAbs to differentiate benign from invasive breast cancers" make it quite clear that Provista's breast cancer test does not use Radient's reagents.
Think about that for a second. Provista could get DR70 for free since it is off patent, yet they choose not to use it in their breast cancer test.
As I understand the science:
Fibrin and Fibrinogen are proteins involved in the clotting of blood. Provista's breast cancer test "measures multiple breast cancer-specific biomarker proteins in blood samples." That does not describe fibrin or fibrinogen because they are not breast-cancer specific -- they are not even CANCER specific.
An autoantibody is an antibody (a type of protein) produced by the immune system that is directed against one or more of the individual's own proteins. Fibrin and fibrinogen are not autoantibodies. There are autoantibodies that ACT against fibrin and fibrinogen but that is irrelevant.
Conclusion: Provista's tests of their breast cancer studies -- both completed and ongoing -- do not involve Radient's DR70 in any way.
If Provista is not interested in using DR70 in their breast cancer test, it seems obvious that they are not "taking over" or "merging with" Radient to get their hands on DR70. Rebuttals welcome but stay on topic PLEASE.