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.
Very big takeaway (:
That's true.
Guess the bigger take away is that QMC is still it's own company, and will still operate on it's own under the leadership of Pasaca Capital.
Where does it say Quantum was sold to Pasaca?
Quantum was given a 15m investment for Pasaca to gain a 51% controlling interest. Pasaca also signed a distribution agreement with QMC to utilize QMC's Quantum Dots, hence the prior filings I linked previously discussing Quantum's flow reactors creating 4000Kg worth of Quantum Dots yearly, with more being built.
If you look at Pasaca's website, they state they specialize in "investing" into promising companies. They don't "buy" companies. If that was the case, Innova Medical Group would not be it's own company, which it is.
The lateral flow tests are being manufactured by Innova Medical Group, who Quantum Materials is supplying it's technology to. Please refer to Quantum's previous press releases and SEC filings for more information. My previous post's have them linked.
Quantum Materials is it's very own company, hence the recent video that just came out.
(:
The latest PR...the one from France?
Are you insinuating that whatever the "latest PR" is, it automatically voids the ones prior?
Again, why does the promo video have to mention Pasaca? Should Apple have to re-state partnerships, distribution agreements, etc upon releasing each new Ad or promotional video? Probably not. Their investor's would already know through public filings and press releases:
While that is correct, the deal is also considered a distribution agreement between Pasaca and Quantum.
I would consider that a partnership.
Under what reasons would they have to talk about partnerships, when the video was about Quantum Materials specifically?
SEC filings and due diligence provides information about partnerships, which they have provided:
QDX HealthID Signs Distribution Agreement with Innova Medical Group Inc. Adding Antigen, Molecular and Antibody Tests to its COVID-19 Test Ecosystem
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/08/12/2077212/0/en/QDX-HealthID-Signs-Distribution-Agreement-with-Innova-Medical-Group-Inc-Adding-Antigen-Molecular-and-Antibody-Tests-to-its-COVID-19-Test-Ecosystem.html
Quantum Materials Corp. to Accelerate Development of QMC HealthID™ and Quantum Dot Research Following Equity Investment from Pasaca Capital Inc.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210202005387/en/Quantum-Materials-Corp.-to-Accelerate-Development-of-QMC-HealthID%E2%84%A2-and-Quantum-Dot-Research-Following-Equity-Investment-from-Pasaca-Capital-Inc
Sec Filings:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221002306/0001493152-21-002306-index.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221002337/0001493152-21-002337-index.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221006582/0001493152-21-006582-index.htm
(:
What should we believe? Either:
1.) SEC documents confirming flow reactors are operational with KG's produced:
How can anyone here check reactors? (:
Quantum Materials Corp recently did a company interview going over quantum dots, their role in nano-materials and Infectious disease's, and their blockchain platform mentioning QMC HealthID and Anti-Counterfeiting:
Mon 19 Apr 2021
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/19/lateral-flow-tests-uk-covid?__twitter_impression=true
Lateral flow tests still have a vital role in the UK’s fight against Covid
Infectious disease modelling shows that if everybody could do a coronavirus test twice a week and self-isolate if positive, the pandemic would collapse. Capacity for widespread PCR tests, which look for genetic material from the virus in samples, was built up through the UK’s Lighthouse labs, but initially limited to people with symptoms. Because they are relatively expensive, equipment-intensive laboratory tests, turnaround was often several days, by which point it would be too late to prevent onward transmission.
Then along came the apparent godsend of the cheaper lateral flow tests (LFTs) that use a swab twirled in both nostrils and the throat, seeking coronavirus proteins that bind to antibodies on the stick, and give an answer in 30 minutes. Epidemiologists suggested that, if combined with adequate income support for self-isolation, this could be a critical tool in Covid control. Six months later LFTs are still controversial, with some saying they are “a complete waste of money”.
The first round of complaints about the LFTs, when the virus prevalence was high late last year, was that they missed too many cases compared with the PCR test and thus provided false reassurance. It is now clear that many people who test positive by PCR do so many days or even weeks after they have ceased to become infectious. The LFTs on the other hand detect 80-90% of cases in the days when people are most infectious, and then rapidly become negative when they are unlikely to transmit the virus. This characteristic made it look like the LFTs gave a lot of false negatives compared with PCR – but from an infectiousness point of view, it is the latter that is actually giving a lot of false positives.
With the virus prevalence much lower, the criticism now is that a high proportion of the LFT positive results are false positives. It is a characteristic of any test that produces occasional false positives that when the number of true cases in the population is low, a higher proportion of the test positive cases will be false positive. Thus, if one in 1,000 LFTs are graded as a false positive, when the prevalence of the virus is one in 100 – and if LFTs detect 80% of these – there would be one false positive and eight true positives detected.
The Office for National Statistics report on 16 April put the prevalence at about 1 in 500 in England and Scotland. This should mean that now for every 1,000 people tested, we should see 1 false positive and 1 or 2 true positives. Critics complain that too high a proportion of test positives have to be unnecessarily asked to self-isolate when the virus prevalence is low.
The obvious solution is to quickly do a confirmatory test. This could be PCR, but it could probably also be another on-the-spot LFT. Technology may eventually help out, as many of the false positives appear to be mistaken or inexpert reading of the lines indicating positivity on the LFTs, and the development of smartphone apps that use artificial intelligence to process a photo of the LFT may considerably reduce the number of false positives reported.
The UK government has now agreed that a negative PCR test taken within two days of a LFT positive releases someone from self-isolation. There are still problems with the test, trace and isolate and Lighthouse laboratory systems, but turnaround has improved. If the private sector is used it needs to be better regulated: I have personal experience of not receiving a test in time to be useful from a company on the government’s list of approved providers.
LFTs, combined with rapidly available confirmatory tests are important tools in Covid control. They are not, however, the “cheap and cheerful” alternatives to laboratory tests they are sometimes depicted to be. They are actually quite sophisticated medical devices, and care has to be taken to evaluate the offerings from different manufacturers and monitor their performance over time and from batch to batch. Just like the PCR tests, a change in the chemical reagents used in their manufacture can lead to poorer performance. Fortunately, the government has established testing for these kits at its Porton Down laboratory, whereas many other countries, including the US, rely on test performance being reported by the manufacturers.
So would I feel safer on a crowded plane in which everyone had tested negative by PCR or by an LFT at the airport? The easy answer is that I would certainly feel better in either scenario compared with doing nothing – and the same applies to buses, trains, indoor dining, theatres, sports events, hospitals and any shared workplace. Given the cost of PCR tests, failing to take advantage of the lower cost and quicker turnaround of the LFTs is often the equivalent of doing nothing. And the full answer is that that both approaches might miss some cases. A PCR done three days prior to a flight will not detect someone who turns infectious in those three days. The LFT is up to date, but may miss some people with low viral loads.
As a passenger however, I would much rather take the very small risk of being turned down at the airport because of a false positive LFT than face an anxious wait wondering whether the provider of my PCR test would get the result back to me in time. If admitted to hospital, I would feel reassured that twice-weekly LFT testing of NHS staff has resulted in tens of thousands of potentially infectious staff remaining at home rather than coming to work.
For population-wide screening, we will never be able to build enough laboratory capacity to test a high proportion of the population twice a week by PCR one sample at a time. If we could do so with LFTs, now provided for free by the government, and optimise the PCR capacity to provide rapid confirmatory testing (that will also allow us to monitor for new virus variants), we would put a substantial part of control of the epidemic in the hands of the people.
Some of the same critics who were sceptical of our compliance with lockdowns think we will not follow through on self-testing. However, public engagement remains high. Effective use of LFTs, along with vaccines and social distancing, should help us get closer to the goal of a zero-Covid UK and to keep infection rates as low as possible.
David Hunter is the Richard Doll professor of epidemiology and medicine, University of Oxford
March 17, 2021, 5:07 AM
https://abcnews.go.com/US/companies-mull-home-testing-options-return-work-vaccine/story?id=76395708
Companies mull at-home testing options for return to work as vaccine supply soars.
A new study is underway to see if at-home COVID-19 tests could pave the way to reopening America's workplaces.
Citigroup, a U.S. multinational investment bank and financial services company, is launching a pilot program with Chicago-area bank branch employees and its traders, headquartered in New York, aimed at allowing their personnel to utilize a rapid antigen test, provided by Innova Medical Group, before coming into the workplace.
"This at-home COVID-19 testing program uses a rapid antigen test, which provides highly accurate results within 20 minutes," said Dr. Lori Zimmerman, corporate medical director at Citi. "The science is clear: frequent use of low-cost, simple, rapid tests is highly effective in identifying people who are currently infectious, even if they are asymptomatic."
Employees involved in the pilot administer the test to themselves by swabbing their noses three times throughout the week -- Monday, Wednesday and Friday -- and are guided through the testing process by Bella Health, a health assessment app. In a matter of minutes employees can learn their test results. The app directs employees to notify an immediate manager in the event of a positive test result.
Citi has invited a thousand of its employees to participate in the pilot program, with the goal of eventually expanding it to all of its branch workers, which would increase the program's participation to more than 6,000 workers.
A Citigroup spokesperson told ABC News that the company does not plan to disclose details of the expenses related to launching its rapid-testing pilot program.
The tests, which are part of a larger study with Harvard University researcher Dr. Michael Mina, have yet to receive emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration, so are not available for consumers in the United States.
"Frankly, I don't fully understand the hold up, I've seen the data from these companies," said Mina.
The FDA has authorized other rapid antigen tests and does not specifically speak about products under regulatory review.
"If a test comes to us with good data, we will authorize it as quickly as our scientific review allows," said an FDA spokesperson when asked about the authorization status of the Innova rapid antigen tests. "The FDA has and will continue to authorize tests when the data supports authorization. The FDA will not authorize tests where the data is incomplete or does not otherwise support authorization."
The FDA issued additional guidance on Tuesday for test developers seeking emergency use authorization of tests screening large groups of individuals for COVID-19 infections. It is guidance that could come in handy for employers and school administrators looking to stay a step ahead of asymptomatic cases and protect their workforce from bouts of coronavirus infection.
According to a study conducted at the University of Liverpool, researchers found the Innova Medical Group's test to demonstrate a 40% sensitivity rate. Other studies conducted by Oxford University and Public Health England found the test to be about 77% accurate.
"In general, antigen tests are very specific for COVID-19, but are not as sensitive as molecular PCR tests," according to the FDA. "Positive results from antigen tests, while generally highly accurate, may be subject to false positive results especially in areas where there are fewer infections."
Rapid antigen tests provide the advantage of lower costs, fewer supplies and speed that molecular PCR tests, which take one to two days for laboratory processing, still do not.
Another rapid test, the Abbott BinaxNow, is FDA authorized and available in the United States. The $25 test can also be done from home, but requires a prescription and virtual telehealth proctor to watch the process. Abbott has been conducting a similar workplace pilot program to the one Citi is starting with their own employees -- already distributing 400,000 test kits.
Early results have found more than 7 in 10 of the positive cases were discovered in asymptomatic patients using the BinaxNOW kits. Those people without symptoms likely could have returned to work and possibly spread the virus.
And in California, public schools in Fresno are now open for classes by regularly testing students and staff as they start the day with the Abbott BinaxNOW tests.
That quick turn around on the rapid antigen tests is also part of the reason why companies like Citi are eager to utilize them as part of their strategy to return employees back to work after months of having shut down hundreds of local Citibank branches.
With only about 12% of Americans now fully vaccinated according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, coronavirus testing remains an important tool in tracking new cases and putting a halt to spread.
"We know this will help us protect our workers," said David Chubak, head of U.S. retail banking at Citi. "But even more than that, it will help us protect our clients, will help us protect and create greater safety, and a greater awareness in our communities as the vaccine is rolled out and help us restart businesses even faster than we are today."
Let's revisit some FACTS, shall we?
We have a distribution agreement between Innova Medical Group and QMC:
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/08/12/2077212/0/en/QDX-HealthID-Signs-Distribution-Agreement-with-Innova-Medical-Group-Inc-Adding-Antigen-Molecular-and-Antibody-Tests-to-its-COVID-19-Test-Ecosystem.html
We have a distribution agreement between Pasaca and QMC:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210202005387/en/Quantum-Materials-Corp.-to-Accelerate-Development-of-QMC-HealthID%E2%84%A2-and-Quantum-Dot-Research-Following-Equity-Investment-from-Pasaca-Capital-Inc
We have SEC filings concerning the partnership between QMC and Pasaca:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221002306/0001493152-21-002306-index.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221002337/0001493152-21-002337-index.htm
All these are publicly presented either through PR's or government SEC filings. Innova Medical Group's website, MPS Medical Website (who Innova purchased) and Pasaca Capital all feature either QMC, or QMC HealthID:
https://pasacacapital.com/case-study/quantum-materials/
https://mpsmedical-inc.com/
https://innovamedgroup.com/qmc-healthid/
All public files and agreements can be viewed above.
It's as if this needs to repeated:
Quote:"Exits will only appear on a profile if the person or organization was an investor in a funding round of a company that went public (and has the IPO listed on their company profile).
To be more specific, an exit will appear on person profile if the person was an individual investor in a funding round. Partner investments made on an investment firm’s behalf will not appear as exits for the partner.
Additionally, exits will only appear on an organization profile (company or school) if the organization was an investor in a funding round."
Quantum is public already, which is why the exit occurred. My prior post's proves Pasaca deal is in effect.
I think the the term "Projection" is adequate here (:
Oh, so you agree that post was opinion and not fact, as I stated?
(:
Great point.
Again, completely false.
Let's give everyone a clearer idea of the whole "crunch base" thing that you keep mentioning:
Thanks for highlighting this.
You would think that if an exit occurred, Pasaca would remove QMC from their website all together, no?
Still there (:
My post 99571 asked:
I mean we could call the SEC, but QMC submitted, to the SEC, government filings concerning the partnership.
I guess by that standard QMC tattled on themselves eh? lol.
Also, hard for this to be a huge pyramid scheme when one of the players, Innova Medical Group, has multiple contracts with the government of the Untied Kingdom. You would think the UK Government would look into the controlling authority of Innova (who is Pasaca) before awarding contracts, no?
Let's not gloss over the fact that just because it's "hard" to find DD on the other businesses Pasaca holds, does not mean it's BS. Pasaca Capital specifically states that they invest in start up's. Who's to say those startups won't become relevant in the future? Innova sure has so far.
But I digress (:
Opinion, got it!
(:
FreeGrass, can you show your reasoning on how "you knew" the deal was fake? Because upon reviewing the government SEC filings and related PR's, I'm going to state that you are wrong.
We have a distribution agreement between Innova Medical Group and QMC:
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/08/12/2077212/0/en/QDX-HealthID-Signs-Distribution-Agreement-with-Innova-Medical-Group-Inc-Adding-Antigen-Molecular-and-Antibody-Tests-to-its-COVID-19-Test-Ecosystem.html
We have a distribution agreement between Pasaca and QMC:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210202005387/en/Quantum-Materials-Corp.-to-Accelerate-Development-of-QMC-HealthID%E2%84%A2-and-Quantum-Dot-Research-Following-Equity-Investment-from-Pasaca-Capital-Inc
We have SEC filings concerning the partnership between QMC and Pasaca:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221002306/0001493152-21-002306-index.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221002337/0001493152-21-002337-index.htm
All these are publicly presented either through PR's or government SEC filings. Innova Medical Group's website, MPS Medical Website (who Innova purchased) and Pasaca Capital all feature either QMC, or QMC HealthID:
https://pasacacapital.com/case-study/quantum-materials/
https://mpsmedical-inc.com/
https://innovamedgroup.com/qmc-healthid/
Now, if you want to make the case that QMC will fail because they are inept, by all means we can have that conversation.
But as I see it now, there is no factual backing to the claim you made regarding the deal. Only negative speculation.
Have you actually visited the website? Looked over the case studies on the 4 companies they have controlling authority over? Reviewed the ~2 Billion dollar contracts Innova Medical Group has been awarded? At all?
It's easy to say "Anyone can make a BS website".
It's a bit harder to actually visit the actual website and realize....it's not BS.
News:
QMC HealthID Provides COVID Testing Support For Victoires De La Musique Awards Ceremony
QMC HealthID™ used to assist in pre-event COVID testing at the prestigious Les Victoires de la Musique annual awards ceremony for the French music industry.
April 15, 2021 09:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
PARIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--QMC HealthID, a wholly owned subsidiary of Quantum Materials Corp, announced that it had deployed its QMC HealthID™ software platform to assist with voluntary COVID testing at Les Victoires de la Musique music industry awards ceremony held February 12th in Paris, France.
“QMC was honored to play a part in the COVID prevention plans for the Les Victoires de la Musique awards ceremony”
Held yearly since 1985, Les Victoires de la Musique is an annual French award ceremony delivered by the French Ministry of Culture that recognizes outstanding achievement in the music industry and the best musical artists of the year.
In conjunction with test manufacturer Innova Medical Group, a COVID-19 screening area was set up to voluntarily administer the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test. During the pre-event screening process, the QMC HealthID™ mobile application platform enabled medical staff to verify participants, assess their test result outcome, and then notify the participants of their test outcomes.
“By supporting this major national cultural event, QMC HealthID and Innova allowed the media and the participants to experience a simple and viable solution to make the awards ceremony safer against COVID-19,” said Xavier Guerin, President of EMEA of Innova Medical Group.
The production of the Victoires De La Musique Ceremony requires approximately 400 technicians and journalists in addition to the musicians themselves. QMC and Innova coordinated on pre-event COVID-19 testing to demonstrate that the event production company was taking appropriate precautions to protect the health of the musicians as well as journalists and all event production staff.
“QMC was honored to play a part in the COVID prevention plans for the Les Victoires de la Musique awards ceremony,” said Stephen B. Squires, CEO of Quantum Materials Corp. “Helping make the awards ceremony safer to attend in person is 100% in line with our mission of getting people back to work quickly and safely.”
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/202104...s-Ceremony
Can someone give me an ELI5 on Fannie Mae? What's it's history and why are there so many eyes on it?
Trying to do some DD as well.
Looks as if MPS's website updated to reflect on Innova Medical Group's previous acquisition.
Innova Medical Group's PR concerning the acquisition of MPS as of January 4th, 2021:
Not entirely.
The partnership between QMC and Tried and Tested is old news.
The recent testing initiative from the UK to test twice a week, combined with Tried and tested (Disruptive Nanotechnology) providing the tests from Innova Medical Group, is new information.
1.) Interesting article. References Tried and Tested:
I would say in Aug is where we may see that.
Big moves happening from the FDA. From Michael Mina:
------
BIG NEWS!!
Rapid Antigen "Paper Strip" Tests get over-the-counter use from @US_FDA!
• NO prescription or doctor needed
• NO CLIA waiver
Simple, streamlined rapid tests will be available in US
First companies:
@AbbottNews BinaxNOW
@QuidelDX Quickvue
https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/13...19330?s=19
------
This paves the way for Innova.
Kelce Wilson
3rdPatent Attorney, General Counsel, Chief Privacy Officer (CPO) | Cybersecurity Engineer (PhD EE) | Veteran
Privacy & Security / GDPR • Patent Prosecution, Litigation, Licensing • Former white hat hacker for US military.
USPTO #50289; Texas Bar 2005; Industry experience as engineer and computer programmer, and also an adjunct professor of electrical engineering (graduate level courses). CIPP-US, CIPP-E, & CIPM.
Patent work can involve prioritizing inventions for patenting, drafting applications, arguing for allowance, asserting infringement, defending from assertions, selling, evaluating for purchase, outbound licensing, inbound licensing, competitor cross licensing, design-around, freedom-to-operate, and secrecy orders. Few attorneys have experience with more than just a few of these activities; I have experience in all.
Current Position:
-Chief Privacy Officer (CP)
Quantum Materials Corporation
Nov 2020 - Present
5 mos
Provide guidance on privacy matters, act as data protection officer (DPO)
Recent Experience:
-General Counsel InfraGard of North Texas
Sep 2017 - Present
3 yrs 7 mos
-Cybersecurity Engineer / Data Privacy / Chief Intellectual Property Counsel
Tenet3
Aug 2013 - Present
7 yrs 8 mos
-Attorney At Law
Grable Martin Fulton PLLC
Jul 2017 - Apr 2020
2 yrs 10 mos
-Patent Attorney, Senior Technical Director of Litigation
BlackBerry (formerly Research In Motion)
Feb 2008 - May 2017
9 yrs 4 mos
-Lt Colonel
US Air Force Reserve
Dec 2002 - Jul 2010
7 yrs 8 mos
-Associate Attorney
Carr IP
Apr 2007 - Jan 2008
10 mos
-Associate Attorney
Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, PC
Sep 2006 - Apr 2007
8 mos
-Associate Attorney
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI INTERNATIONAL LLP
Jan 2005 - Aug 2006
1 yr 8 mos
-Cybersecurity Engineer (Software Security Engineer) and Adjunct Professor of Electrical Engineering
Riverside Research Institute
Nov 2002 - Dec 2004
2 yrs 2 mos
-Major
United States Air Force
Jun 1989 - Dec 2002
13 yrs 7 mos
The 10K makes reference to Pasaca Capital and Innova Medical Group, which are current developments within the 2019 10K.
We know the distribution agreement between QMC and Innova Medical Group was announced in Aug 2020, and is ongoing.
I will assume that the projected revenues for 4th quarter fiscal year 2021 is a recent projection, and not one from 2019.
Under the Operational Overview portion of the 10K:
"....We expect to commence generating revenues from licensing agreements, joint ventures and/or the production of materials at the San Marcos facility in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2021. In the event we secure a license agreement we anticipate an upfront licensing payment to the company with ongoing royalty payments. Revenues from materials manufactured by the company are expected to be modest at first and will be dependent upon our ability to generate purchase orders from development partners."
Per the 10K, revenues were to start 4th quarter fiscal year 2021, starting this April.
I am under the assumption that it is taking them longer than usual to submit financials since they have to catch up on a years worth of information. The 10K that was submitted recently was rather lengthy.
But I am too, not expecting much from the 2020 10K. Maybe something on the 2nd/3rd quarter 202110Q.
Understood. In the case of the 10K, how would you think Pasaca would purchase the common stock?
BigE I think made a good point, but want your interpretation.
How would you interpret this Mr. Ban?
*At the second closing, Pasaca will purchase common stock of the Company (“Common Stock”)*....
....in an amount such that, after such purchase and the conversion of the Senior Note into the Note Shares, Pasaca will own fifty-one percent (51.0%) of the fully diluted common stock of the Company. The purchase price for the Common Stock to be sold in the second closing is $10,500,000.
So we know they will buy common stock, but not how or "where".
Purchasing common stock, whether over an exchange or other means would still drive the price up. So it would be synonymous with buying on an exchange imo.
What is the difference between Open market and common stock? Wouldn't they be one and the same?
This is why they included Bella Health AI for test administration, along with conducting the Citi Bank trial to prove to the FDA that the process works.
This was also before the FDA adjusted guidelines to allow more flexibility:
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-takes-steps-streamline-path-covid-19-screening-tools-provides
Thanks.