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.
Wolfie stated: "I researched the trademarks from Genway. I didn't see any attempt by them to trademark "Lung Cancer Test". I guess you discovered the same... Wolf"
If you could not find the trademark, your research ability is limited.
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77816896&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
It may be strange and difficult for some to comprehend but I do not just "make up" things to post. You should follow suit.
The "rough draft" is not a rumor. From the USPT response:
SPECIMEN REQUIRED
The submitted specimen contains the following bold wording: “This brochure is a rough draft.”
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86079607&docId=SPE20131004072251#docIndex=5&page=2
GenWay also attempted to register "Lung Cancer Test" in 2009 after they had licensed DR70 from Radient. GenWay had the rights to all applications of DR70 except colorectal cancer.
Interesting. A Dr. Robert Bowser shares the same postal drop box as Global Cancer Diagnostics.
http://www.azbio.org/member-directory/iron-horse-diagnostics-inc
Gartner has allowed about half of the allowed response time to lapse without any response at all.
Don't you think he would have already responded if a trademark was important?
Maybe Gartner doesn't want to pay the 100 dollar fee to respond.
The results of in house studies lists a specificity of 96% and may not be accurate enough for a screening test to be approved by the FDA.
If you look at the sere data for lung cancer, of 100 smokers tested, 1.4 men and .8 women would test positive and actually have undiagnosed lung cancer. With a test specificity of 96%, 4 out of 100 smokers would test positive who did not have lung cancer.
From the information submitted by GCDx, the intent is to market the test as a "home brew" test. If they are using any kind of computer analyzed results, the FDA has historically made companies cease testing without FDA approval.
IMO, by applying for a trademark, Gartner is attempting to provide additional proof of intent to market a test in order to find some sort of financing.
The trademark application was rejected because the trademark name is just a description of the test and not a specific identifiable name.
Also, the sample of the specimen submitted was clearly not something used in commerce prior to the application date. It clearly had "rough draft" printed on the specimen and that would not have been used in commerce. The USPT board has asked for proof that the specimen has been used in actual commerce prior to the date of the application.
Gartner has 6 months to reply from the date of application.
Wolfie, thanks for proving me correct that "the lung cancer test" is just a renamed DR70 test.
"The Lung Cancer Test is already approved for sale in Canada, India, China, and many More countries under a number of regulartory agencies. GCDx will introduce the blood test for the early detection of Lung Cancer under CLIA's Laboratory Developed Test Rule."
The 10% employee stock and option plan explains why the lenders ceased selling at 4.5 billion outstanding. There were no more shares left that could be issued to the lenders.
That also explains the shares dumped on the market after the Rosen settlement. Consultants (lawyers fit this category) can be compensated from the employee stock option plan.
Dcspka, your post is not accurate at all. As I mentioned before, when form 13's are filed, they also count warrants and convertible notes so Kopin never ever owned 10.5 million shares and he certainly would not have any significant amount of common stock today.
") 96,756 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of the First Cranshire Warrant, (v) 5,093 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of the First Managed Account Warrant, and (vi) 9,514,588 shares of Common Stock issuable upon conversion of a convertible note held by Cranshire Capital (the “Cranshire Capital Note”),
If you want to look at my posts back in 2010, I was warning investors that this company was going to fail. In 2011 at the peak of all the hype I continued to post the truth. Now, who was correct?
The only others on this board who know a lot about this stock are Lakeshore and Runcoach. In the past few years, others posted here who actually believed what Mac and Garza were stating. All of those people are gone now. One of those investors actually sought me out and we met at a restaurant to discuss the company. He sold his shares and later thanked me greatly for the information and limiting his losses.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone could really think Radient has any assets of commercial value. CIT is worthless and actually written off my management. DR70 patents are expiring and the know how technology has been given away for peanuts for any market the test ever had. For someone in the Orient with low costs, maybe they can make a few bucks selling to the limited market but for a USA company, it is a waste of time.
Mac made a lot of money from Radient and that is the point few really understand. Mac didn't make money from DR70, Mac made money from naïve investors.
Look at Gartner and his DR70/LC Sentinel test. That product would never make money and Gartner knows that but he would surely make some bucks from investors during the process.
They do it all the time. Look at BiCurex and the RECAF universal marker. The CEO played it for all it was worth for 10 years. When the truth finally came out, one of the former employees even stated that the latest test that had all the hype didn't even work well. The CEO did fine though, he had a good salary the entire time and walked with a couple million from Revenue Canada when they finally shutdown.
A takeover of any kind is all just a fabrication by posters on a message board and just how long has this fabricated takeover been in final stages?
As for Mac being a liar, I think the Rosen law firm proved that. Mac was really good at bending the truth.
Remember the "government program" to sell Onko Sure in India.
Well, when the truth came out, there was no actual "government program". It was just something Mac was hyping as a "government program".
Do you believe Mac lied? I think gullible retail believed what Mac was stating. Remember Garza who kept stating he had direct conversations with mac and then printed all the false information on Seeking Alpha?
There were two agreements signed with MVSS but only one was ever made public. In the 10k, Mac stated that Mayo was going to validate the "new" onko sure. The agreement with MVSS that was finally made public stated it was a revised agreement.
There was no "new" onko Sure. Do you think the lenders believed the Announcement from Bhatia about taking CIT into trials? That announcement drove the stock through the roof and the lenders would have convertible notes at a fraction of that price. Greed got the lenders to believe mac.
Actually, there were 4 lenders involved in the 2012 loans.
Why do you think the lenders filed a lawsuit against Radient and specifically named Mac and the cfo?
There is no speculation at all about Mac deceiving the 2012 investors. Mac got Umesh Bhatia to announce he was taking CIT into trials in India. Do you really think that was truthful?
Umesh Bhatia had no money to develop anything. Mac could not even get Bhatia's address correct in the press releases.
Mac also stated in press releases that he had a new version of Onko Sure that would be more effective and trials would be run by Mayo. Have you seen a new version of Onko Sure? If you look at the agreement with MVSS, there is no comments at all on a new version of Onko Sure. It was just lies and it is all there in public documents.
Yes, gullible retail bought it all. They chase bad money with good money. They believe what some poster on Seeking Alpha says rather than actually looking at factual reports filed with the SEC. Gullible retail looks at a test cleared by the FDA as something with value without actually knowing much about the product.
I know a lot about universal cancer markers and their lack of medical value. Some markers have success when they test positive for a limited number of cancers like CEA but when the number is huge like DR70 which also has false positives to heart conditions, infections, injuries, and gastrointestinal disorders, the odds of it having any useful value is slim to none.
Just look at the failures besides Dr70. RECAF and HaaH had lots of hype but failed. Their are lots of universal markers discovered in research that are offered to be licensed for development without any takers.
If gullible retail had made any significant attempt at due diligence, they would never have bought the stock.
Now, it is just being bought by those willing to gamble a few dollars in case the stock they buy at .0001 will sell for .0002.
What's the cost of a million shares? It's a hundred bucks.
You can talk up the stock all you want but talk will never increase the value of Radient and their near worthless DR70.
The purpose of the blocker provision was to limit the actual shares the lenders would hold at one time. If they held 10% or more, they would be limited by rule 144 in the amount of shares they could sell. The lenders wanted no limitation at all on the amount of shares they could sell.
Mac was very accommodating to the lenders because he was fearful they would sue his rear off. He lied to them. That was very clear and the lawsuit they brought against Mac and crew was dropped when he basically gave them the right to sell an almost unlimited number of shares.
The lenders would have gotten a lot more money from selling all those shares to gullible retail but someone absolutely dumped their shares in huge numbers driving to price so low that the lenders really didn't get much money from all the shares they sold. I suspect the guilty party who drove the price down so quickly was either the law firm involved or the placement agent.
The lenders never held any significant amount of stock and they would be the absolute LAST people to be interested in Radient. For them, it was a very tough lesson for lending money to people who lie to get the loans.
Check the form 13 filings. They were for warrants and not stock. The warrants had full ratchet pricing and the converted shares were sold to gullible retail.
There is no value in this company at all. The last patent is about to expire and all of the manufacturing technology has been transferred to others who can soon just manufacture a generic product to accommodate what sales are out there.
Generic DR70 is already being manufactured in China and sold worldwide for research purposes.
There are no small groups involved in a "takeover" owning less than 5% of Radient to avoid the Form 13 reporting rules.
The SEC rules state that any group acting together have to report the total of their ownership if the sum is greater than 5%.
It is just an absolute fact that a takeover entity does NOT exist and that is just a fabrication by a few unfortunate shareholders who are stuck in this stock.
The idea of a "take over" entity is laughable.
Just look at the facts.
Evidence there is NO takeover group:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000838879&type=&dateb=&owner=exclude&start=40&count=40
No one has filed a form 13 since 2011 when the lenders were declaring their warrants which have now been exercised and sold as part of the FIVE BILLION outstanding shares.
Now, for the evidence there is a take over group:
ABSOLUTELY NONE.
IMO there was insurance.
"On March 11, 2011, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. filed a class action suit, alleging the Company had violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the relationship between us and third parties in the Company's clinical studies of its Onko-Sure® test kits. The Company believes there is no basis to the suit filed by The Rosen Law Firm and it has been fully transparent in its relationship with third parties.
In the ordinary course of business, there are other potential claims and lawsuits brought by or against the Company. In the opinion of management, the ultimate outcome of these matters will not materially affect the Company’s operations or financial position or are covered by insurance.
"
Your claim the "takeover" entity has 57% of the outstanding shares is absolutely ludicrous.
The fact that no form 13's have been filed is clear evidence that no shareholder has more that 250 million shares of this junk.
"SEC requirements for ownership reporting:
An initial Schedule 13G must be filed through the SEC’s EDGAR system within 45 days after the end of the calendar year when the registered investment advisor attains more than 5% beneficial ownership. If a registered investment advisor attains more than 10% beneficial ownership prior to the end of the calendar year, the initial Schedule 13G must be filed within 10 days after the end of the first month in which beneficial ownership exceeds 10% as computed on the last day of the month.
Amendments to Schedule 13G must be filed annually when there are changes. However, if the initial Schedule 13G reports ownership of more than 5% and the registered investment advisor exceeds 10% prior to the end of the year, an amendment must be filed 10 days after the month in which beneficial ownership exceeds 10%, as computed on the last day of the month. Thereafter, the registered investment advisor must file an amendment within 10 days after the month when ownership decreases or increases by 5%. Once an amendment has been filed showing change of ownership below 5%, no additional filings are needed.
Lake, I agree that something was up when all the shares were dumped after the settlement agreement. Also, there should not have been any reason why the lenders should not have continued right to the 5 billion authorized when they were selling.
IMO, shares were reserved to pay for Mac's lawyers. Now that they have settled, what happens if Radient defaults on the deal. Did Mac get a "get out of jail" free card with the deal?
The way I read the 10k, there was insurance coverage when Mac lied about Mayo and the lawsuit began. The amount of insurance was never disclosed but I bet the settlement was for the maximum.
Gullible retail owns all the outstanding shares in Radient. The lenders sure do not hold any or they would have to report on form 13. The lenders NEVER held common shares. They had convertible notes and preferred shares which were required to be redeemed in cash in November 2012. Of course, Radient defaulted on that redemption also.
Vester, the reason Radient got the money from the lenders is because the CEO LIED TO THEM. Mac got Bhatia to make a press release saying they would take CIT into trials in India and Mac claimed the Mayo clinic was running trials on a "new" version of Onko Sure.
There was no "new" version of Onko Sure and Bhatia's whole India scheme was a farce.
If you did not notice, the lenders filed a lawsuit against everyone in Radient management which was later dropped in exchange for a new agreement and a TON of warrants they began converting and selling on the open market to gullible retail.
Vester, I didn't back you up on anything. You said the debt was gone. I proved it was NOT gone.
As for the conversions, look up the agreements with the lenders. They were mostly given warrants which they converted into shares as they were selling. The lenders never owned many shares at all since they sold the shares and then gave notice to the company to convert warrants. The warrants had what is called "full ratchet" pricing which was a percentage of the previous 10 days selling price. Some of the lenders were judicious in their selling practices and some were not. The ones who were not just drove the price to the bottom. The lawyers who converted stock for their compensation just dumped it on the market for whatever they could get.
None of this debt has been resolved. The interest on the debt has been more than the money from the converted warrants that were sold.
From the last 10k on debt.
"As of June 15, 2012, we had the following approximate amounts of outstanding short term indebtedness:
· Accrued interest of approximately $1,054,088;
· Approximately $46,000 in unsecured convertible notes bearing interest at 10% per annum increased to 18% per annum due to failure to pay the Notes by September 29, 2010;
· Approximately $25,000 in senior unsecured convertible promissory notes bearing interest at 18% interest, payable quarterly in cash, which became due between December 2010 and May 2011;
· Approximately $8.0 million in legal settlement promissory notes, bearing interest at 8% per annum. We are obligated to retire the Notes in monthly installments, commencing January 31, 2012, by payment in cash or (at our sole option) by delivery of shares of our common stock in an amount equal to 6.25% of the initial principal amount of each Note, plus accrued interest;
· Approximately $4.8 million in outstanding November Notes and $3.4 million in Series B and $500,000 Series C convertible preferred stock which, unless converted into our common stock, matures or is subject to mandatory redemption on November 29, 2012; and
· Approximately $300,000 in unsecured convertible notes bearing interest at 4% per annum that matures on April 30, 2015.
Absent full conversion of these debts or the receipt of new financing or series of financings, our current operations do not generate sufficient cash to pay these obligations, when due. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will be able to pay these or other obligations which we may incur in the future.
In the event we are unable to convert into equity the balance of the outstanding November Notes, RDO Notes and the outstanding redeemable Series B and Series C Preferred Stock, the holders may obtain judgments against us and seek to enforce such judgments against our assets, in which event we will be required to cease our business activities and the equity of our stockholders will be effectively wiped out."
Vester, the BT test is a breast cancer test and not for lung cancer. Also, in the initial press release, it was stated that LC Sentinel was developed by Radient.
LC Sentinel had different results than Onko Sure because it was not meant to be given in random screening. They intended to test only smokers so that would definitely increase the sensitivity and specificity.
For what ever reason, Provista kept delaying the introduction of the test and finally dropped it from their product pipeline. At that point, Gartner then attempted to find funding and market the test via GCDX. That also failed to get funding.
vester, DR70 is NOT combined with any reagents from Provista. LC Sentinel is just DR70, nothing else.
I read a doctors comment several years ago regarding a universal cancer marker.
"Interesting science but clearly a waste of time." None of the universal cancer markers have any value in screening. They have way too many false positives and on top of that, the doctor has no idea where the positive response is originating. The results are just confusing and totally unhelpful.
dcspka, you are missing the point. Radient COULDN'T get anyone to license the product. It was cleared by the FDA in June 08 and Radient couldn't find anyone. Finally after a year, Radient gave up and licensed it to a lab in LA for NOTHING. Just sell it please was all they asked.
The product was a failure and no one wanted it. It was not even cleared for monitoring CRC by itself. It had to be used in conjunction with CEA.
The doctors in India were smart enough to figure out the test was worthless. Radient had a failed product and that is why they are out of business.
The appeal was to refute the Genway prior art but she did nothing to counter the Jandu part of the rejection.
vester, I am totally correct. LC Sentinel was the DR70 test renamed. I spoke with the lab director at Provista a couple years ago.
"William Gartner owns the rights to LC Sentinel, but needs Onko-Sure to maximize its effectiveness"
That is just pure gibberish.
LC Sentinel was just a name used by Provista for a DR70 test when used for lung cancer. There is no "maximizing" nor is there any increased "effectiveness". It is just another name for the same test.
Runcoach, the process for DR70 remained unchanged. The patent application is attempting to add monitoring into a patent but it has met opposition from the patent board that monitoring using DR70 has had prior art from Genway and Jandu. Small-Howard has attempted to refute the claim that Genway is prior art but did not make any attempt to refute Jandu.
The odds of this application being issued is low since UNI is now supposedly in charge of pursuing the application and the issue of Jandu being prior art.
The first patent which has expired list the following field of invention.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to cancer detection and, more particularly, to a method for determining the presence of a tumor marker in extracellular fluids to reliably indicate the presence of cancer cells in a patient.
The second patent on DR70 also lists the almost identical field of invention.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to cancer detection and, more particularly, to a method for determining the presence of a tumor marker in extracellular fluids to reliably indicate the presence of cancer cells in a patient.
The pending application lists the following.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0001] The present application relates generally to methods of producing and to the production of antibody populations against fibrinogen and fibrin degradation products (FDP), to the antibody populations themselves and to related methods of use, to the detection of cancers and for monitoring the progress of cancer treatment by immunochemically measuring the quantity of FDP in serum.
sites with Onko Sure for sale.
http://www.dr70.com.tw/web/features
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-TW&u=http://www.dr70.com.tw/web/video&prev=/search%3Fq%3Donko%2Bsure%26lr%3D%26cr%3DcountryTW%26as_qdr%3Dall%26tbs%3Dctr:countryTW
that one even has videos of Mac hyping the test.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-TW&u=http://blog.xuite.net/weigonglab/wretch/118457382-%25E6%2596%25B0%25E5%25A2%259E%25E6%25AA%25A2%25E9%25A9%2597%25E9%25A0%2585%25E7%259B%25AEOnko-Sure(DR-70)%25E7%25AC%25AC%25E4%25B8%2580%25E7%25B7%259A%25E7%2599%258C%25E7%2597%2587%25E9%25A2%25A8%25E9%259A%25AA%25E8%25A9%2595%25E4%25BC%25B0%25E6%258C%2587%25E6%25A8%2599&prev=/search%3Fq%3Donko%2Bsure%26lr%3D%26cr%3DcountryTW%26as_qdr%3Dall%26tbs%3Dctr:countryTW
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-TW&u=http://ttc.3tnet.com.tw/project/serv-project-item12.php&prev=/search%3Fq%3Donko%2Bsure%26lr%3D%26cr%3DcountryTW%26as_qdr%3Dall%26tbs%3Dctr:countryTW
Even though the UNI website does not show Onko Sure as a product, this website does.
http://www.mdxtaiwan.com/en/products-service/