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.
Thank you Sea_Urchin,
The PR's claiming that CDEx has developed the G4 (in such a remarkable short period of time), coupled with Poteet's other daytime job makes one wonder.
Oddly, the two questions that Pennstreet refuses to answer are
intrisically tied together.
1. How many hours does Poteet spend in the lab... or how many hours a week does Poteet spend on his other daytime job?
2. Is CDEx claiming that the much touted G4 utilizes Raman Spectroscopy as they suggested in the USPTO link?
Such simple questions. I thought the CDEx scam ended when JB came onboard?
Isn't that what you publicly posted Pennstreet? The scam is over?
When are those hot new G4's gunna start selling since JB (et al) did their marketing survey to determine what hospitals REALLY WANT! LOL
Pennstreet, welcome back in full.
Can you respond to my questions about Wade Poteet's other daytime job?
I've had a very interesting conversation!
Care to take a guess with whom?
"And when he was asked if Cdex was a scam, his answer was something about... it is in the eyes of the beholder. It is so noted that he did NOT say, NO cdex is NOT a scam."
Yes penstreet, I noted that too, he didn't say that 'CDEx WAS NOT A SCAM' because he didn't want to lie.
It was pretty obvious that he was applying a little heat to make sure that on February 1st, CDEx paid him what was owed without him having to endorse an obvious scam by lying.
I suspect that he was paid promptly and had no need to continue making CDEx nervous with public innuendos. Nicely done.
I hope he got paid in cold hard cash, no company checks and certainly no CDEx shares.
Pennstreet, does Poteet still have his other day job at CPSI with his old buddy Harold Cauthen?
So during the G4 development period from September 2010 (when JB became CEO) till present, how much time has Poteet actually spent in the lab?
How much time does he spend with CPSI?
I hope he's not so busy that he doesn't keep up with what CDEx is claiming about the IG4 in their advertisements and PR's. We wouldn't want CDEx to release false and misleading information as was the norm in the past during the scam years.
I think it would be good practice for all technical PR's to be approved by Poteet like the politicians do:
"Hi, I'm Wade Poteet, Chief Scientist at CDEx, and I approve the technical claims of this PR"
"Maybe he'd be interested in engaging in some company-related discussion on this board..."
It could depend on whether his note (due 2/1/20012) has been paid by CDEx.
100% Malspeak. eom
Pennstreet your reply reminds me of the kid telling his teacher his dog ate his homework paper.
"The USPTO failed to send notification to the Cdex office. This happens from time to time. But in order to know this, one would have to be familiar with the USPTO.
That's total BS, here's what the USPTO has to say:
FAILURE TO RECEIVE A NOTIFICATION DOES NOT SHIFT THE BURDEN OF COMPLIANCE FROM THE PATENTEE TO THE USPTO"
Now doesn't that make more sense?
"I really would not worry about any cancelled patent, but, then again, one would have to be familar with the USPTO."
Why, so much time and money as been spent on what I consider the most valuable patent CDEx has and now its unenforceable against infringement. It's in the public domain.
If the patent has value every PP investor should worry. How many PP investors based their investment decision on knowing that CDEx technology was protected?
When CDEx sells PP's are they continuing to claim the valimed G4 is patented? Yes they do in every PR, but I suppose if the G4 still uses cuvettes they can do that.
Isn't it true that one must, by patent law, list a patent number if they are claiming the product is patented?
In other words, the business plan remains the same.
What is the CDEx business plan? The same scam, new CEO?
Advertise a product they don't yet have for sale?
Continue to exhibit mock-up products and rigged demonstrations in order to lure in PP investors?
The next 10Q will be better?
Stay with those church affinity groups for PP sales, they're easy pickins.
Concerned CDEX shareholders can access this information on the USPTO website, but here's what it says:
Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362
Evidently, someone at CDEx isn't takin' care of business.
Of course, it'll all be blamed on MP.
Pennstreet, per your request, I posted a list of Ahura Scientifc patents (in a previous post) for shareholders to review and compare to CDEx patents:
"It would be really nice if the patent that Ahura/Thermo Scientific has on their Raman Technology could be copied and pasted as for comparison to our Cdex Company. The message that was posted on this Cdex web site said that Thermo Scientific has a patent on Raman Spectroscopy. I have my doubts that Thermo Scientific has a patent on Raman Spectroscopy. I am sure we Cdex shareholders would like to see the verification as to message that post number's 37244 and 37245 concerning a patent held by Thermo Scientific."
My question is which CDEx patent should be used for comparison.
It seems that CDEx cuvette patent No. 7,554,658 is obsolete if the new G4 no longer uses cuvettes.
The only other CDEx patent appears to be the original, X-ray fluorescence (XRF) patent No. 7,106,826 which to my knowledge was never reduced to practice.
In fact, the only CDEX patent that seems to have any relevance to the new G4 would be patent No.7,154,102 titled System and methods for detection and identification of chemical substances. which has expired.
If I understand this correctly, it is no longer patented technology and is now in the public domain.
When CDEx releases a G4 PR claiming "patented technology" which patented technology are they referring to, the XRF patent or the cuvette patent?
Is the G4 utilizing either of those two patented technologies?
Thank You.
"Don't know what we would do without you...or Crowe or Coquille.'
You'd probably believe everything that LOCH/CDEx tells you.
Look where that's gotten shareholders over the past 15 years.
Seriously.
Thank you streetpenn, it's called DUE DILIGENCE. Certainly you don't object to posting public information relative to current events at CDEx, do you?
Here's a patent for using Raman spectroscopy and fluorescence spectroscopy for tissue analysis:
United States Patent 7,113,814
Ward , et al. September 26, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tissue interrogation spectroscopy
Abstract
In an emergency medicine patient, accurate measurement of change or lack thereof from non-shock, non-ischemic, non-inflammation, non-tissue injury, non-immune dysfunction conditions is important and is provided, as practical, real-time approaches for accurately characterizing a patient's condition, using Raman (3) and/or fluorescence (30) spectroscopy with a high degree of accuracy. Measurement times are on the order of seconds. High-accuracy measurement is achieved with Raman spectroscopy interrogation of tissue. Simultaneous interrogation by NADH fluorescence spectroscopy may he used. Measurements may be non-invasive to minimally invasive. Preclinical (ultra-early) states of shock can be detected (5), severity can be determined, effectiveness of various treatments can be determined.
"What's really exciting is that CDEX's patented technology can be applied to the analysis of blood, urine, saliva, and other bodily fluids."
Lots of patents on this subject.
Handheld Raman body fluid analyzer
Abstract
Methods and apparatus for in vitro detection of an analyte in a body fluid sample using low resolution Raman spectroscopy are disclosed. The body fluid analyzer includes a disposable strip for receiving a sample of body fluid on a target region, the target region including gold sol-gel to provide surface enhanced Raman scattering. A light source irradiates the target region to produce a Raman spectrum consisting of scattered electromagnetic radiation that is separated into different wavelength components by a dispersion element. A detection array detects at least some of the wavelength components of the scattered light and provides data to a processor for processing the data. The results of the processed data are displayed on a screen to inform a user about an analyte within the body fluid sample.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Clarke; Richard H. (Big Sky, MT), Womble; M. Edward (Austin, TX)
Assignee: Prescient Medical, Inc. (Doylestown, PA)
Appl. No.: 11/340,712
Filed: January 27, 2006
A quick search yields a mix of Ahura's patents centering around Raman Spectroscopy. Now, if we can view CDEx's patent application (if they have one) comparisons can be made.
If one does a quick patent search on Ahura's parent company, Fischer Scientific you would have to sift through over 800 patents! (although not all centered around Raman Spectroscopy)
1 20110317158 CYTOLOGICAL METHOD FOR ANALYZING A BIOLOGICAL SAMPLE BY RAMAN SPECTROSCOPY
2 20110178379 TISSUE ASSESSMENT
3 20110172523 SURFACE ENHANCED SPECTROSCOPY-ACTIVE COMPOSITE NANOPARTICLES
4 20100296085 RAMAN SPECTROMETRY ASSEMBLY
5 20100290042 Use of Free-space Coupling Between Laser Assembly, Optical Probe Head Assembly, Spectrometer Assembly and/or Other Optical Elements for Portable Optical Applications Such as Raman Instruments
6 20100198524 Spectrum Searching Method That Uses Non-Chemical Qualities of the Measurement
7 20100191493 Spectrum Searching Method That Uses Non-Chemical Qualities of the Measurement
8 20100002228 Method and Apparatus for Conducting Raman Spectroscopy
9 20090251694 Method and Apparatus for Conducting Raman Spectroscopy
10 20090213361 Supporting Remote Analysis
11 20090014646 Method and apparatus for incorporating electrostatic concentrators and/or ion mobility separators with Raman, IR, UV, XRF, LIF and LIBS spectroscopy and /or other spectroscopic techniques
12 20090010597 METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR ALIGNMENT AND ASSEMBLY OF OPTOELECTRONIC COMPONENTS
13 20080291426 OPTICAL MEASUREMENT OF SAMPLES
14 20080170223 Low Profile Spectrometer and Raman Analyzer Utilizing the Same
15 20080069169 Spatial bandgap modifications and energy shift of semiconductor structures
16 20080033663 Spectrum searching method that uses non-chemical qualities of the measurement
17 20080024777 Method and apparatus for conducting Raman spectroscopy
18 20070165209 Nanoparticles As Covert Taggants In Currency, Bank Notes, And Related Documents
19 20070116069 Uncooled external cavity laser operating over an extended temperature range
20 20070091412 Compact multipass optical isolator
21 20070074574 Micro-electro-mechanical pressure sensor
22 20070058243 Extended optical bandwidth semiconductor source
23 20070024848 Method and apparatus for conducting RAMAN spectroscopy using a remote optical probe
24 20070014520 Methods and apparatus for alignment and assembly of optoelectronic components
25 20070002319 Method and apparatus for conducting Raman spectroscopy
26 20060170917 Use of free-space coupling between laser assembly, optical probe head assembly, spectrometer assembly and/or other optical elements for portable optical applications such as Raman instruments
27 20060088069 Uncooled, low profile, external cavity wavelength stabilized laser, and portable Raman analyzer utilizing the same
28 20060054506 Surface enhanced spectrometry-active composite nanoparticles
29 20060045151 External cavity wavelength stabilized Raman lasers insensitive to temperature and/or external mechanical stresses, and Raman analyzer utilizing the same
30 20060044557 Low profile spectrometer and raman analyzer utilizing the same
31 20060038979 Nanoparticles as covert taggants in currency, bank notes, and related documents
32 20050265647 System for amplifying optical signals
33 20050248759 Method and apparatus for conducting Raman spectroscopy
34 20050238073 Spatial bandgap modifications and energy shift of semiconductor structures
35 20050225758 Raman optical identification tag
36 20050201675 Monolithic semiconductor light source with spectral controllability
37 20050036535 High spectral fidelity laser source with low FM-to-AM conversion and narrowband tunability
38 20050002615 Methods and apparatus for alignment and assembly of optoelectronic components
39 20040263843 Raman spectroscopy system and method and specimen holder therefor
40 20040250625 Micro-electro-mechanical pressure sensor
41 20040247275 Extended optical bandwidth semiconductor source
42 20040240805 Assembly of optical components and method for assembling same
43 20040240031 Compact multipass optical isolator
"it appears that CDEx will be paying ASD for ever G4 sold. Unless things have changed since CDEx settled the law suit against them, that is still the case.'
On the positive side, if CDEx sells IG4's, they can pay ASD with Monopoly Money! LOL
"The thing about patents is..they are EITHER worth a lot or are worthless."
Like Sea_Urchin said, one can patent a trivial part of a product, one that does not add value to the product's benefits and features, and call it patented technology.
Then some people get patents just to hang on their wall.
Do I think that CDEx is infringing on a patent? I don't known, I wasn't even thinking about that until I read the boards this morning and it seemed to be the topic of conversation.
Other than the file submitted to the USPTO which certainly implies that CDEX is using Raman Spectroscopy, common shareholders don't really know what the heck is going on.
As usual.
Geez... this reminds me when I informed Kidinsight/Pennstreet that CDEx needs to be aware of Analytical Spectral Devices (ASD) which was awarded a patent containing claims which Valimed appeared to be infringing on. That was 6-7 years ago.
kidinsight swore up and down that I was a liar and that ASD was infringing on CDEX, not the other way around.
Well, low and behold, CDEx has to pay royalties to ASD for ever Valimed sold and if the G4 also contains Valimed technology (which they claim it does- photon emmission spectroscopy) it appears that CDEx will be paying ASD for ever G4 sold. Unless things have changed since CDEx settled the law suit against them, that is still the case.
Now pennstreet doesn't seem to believe that a world class company like Ahura/Thermo Fisher Scientific has patents on Raman Spectroscopy?
Please!! This conglomerate of companies and technologies has so many patents it'll make your nose bleed.
I wonder how many new investors know about that patent infringement case?
Actually the patent comment that got pennstreet so excited wasn't even the point of my post, but maybe arloco or someone will sift thru all their patents and pull out some relevant ones for review.
Sea_Urchin,
Remember Ahura Scientific (now called Thermo Scientific)?
This company has a very impressive technical staff and our more than willing to take your call.
Their Raman technology is patented. Take a look at this award winning product and read the features carefully, in particular:
"Point-and-Shoot identification enables analysis directly through sealed glass or plastic containers, avoiding exposure to potentially harmful substances; integrated vial holder offers alternative sampling method"
http://www.ahurascientific.com/chemical-explosives-id/products/firstdefenderrm/index.php
CDEx has some explaining to do IMO.
About Raman and Emmission Spectroscopy
"The Raman effect involves the inelastic scattering of photons from molecules via interactions with the vibrational modes of the analyte molecule. In this process, a photon typically transfers a fraction of its energy to a vibrational mode within the molecule, and consequently its wavelength is red-shifted. The degree of the shift corresponds to the amount of energy taken up by the molecule. Because the vibrational modes are quantized and their energy spacing is molecule-specific, the molecular identity can be determined from the pattern of the observed shifts. The general applicability of this technique is limited to samples that do not exhibit strong fluorescence emission in the Raman spectral range, as strong emissions can easily swamp the relatively weak Raman signals. This problem can often be eliminated or minimized, however, using near-IR excitation away from the electronic absorption bands of most fluorescing species."
Does that make any sense to anyone?
Correction: Does 'the' G4 use Raman Spectroscopy?
"I am not an "expert", so when you travel to Cdex to get your demo, ask them about Raman Spec."
I certainly don't wany to disappoint you pennstreet, I'm thinking that if everything was legit you'd really want us to visit the lab to observe the G4 in action, then report favorably on the brds.
It would be ridiculous for us to travel to the lab if you can't answer such a simple question. Can you blame us?
My question is as simple as it gets, nothing technical, NO EXPERT NEEDED.
DOES NOT G4 USE RAMAN SPECTROSCOPY? Yes or No?
You seem to know all the inner workings of CDEx, but you can't answer such a simple question? That seems deceptive.
Capnmike went out of his way to inform readers about Raman Spectroscopy and FFT when he posted the USPTO link to the G4 image.
He even made special note of Raman Spectroscopy in his post:
"Note that page 2 states Since several spectroscopic methods are used
accuracy and specificity are greatly enhanced.
Note page 3 contents refer to ValiMed G4 Raman and Emmission Spectroscopy and Fast Fourier Transform"
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68438955
The image of the manual titled VALIMED G4 Medication Identification System- Instruction Manual has a subheading lised in the table of contents reading ValiMed G4 Raman and Emmission Spectroscopy.
http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85256767/SPE20110307094017/Specimen/3/03-Mar-2011/sn/false#p=3
You've seen those images before yet you still don't know whether the G4 uses Raman Spectroscopy?
Allow me to rephrase the question.
Does it appear from the USPTO image that CDEx wants people to believe that the G4 uses Raman Spectroscopy?
That's also a simple no brainer question.
Yes or No?
Sea, the fact pennstreet fails to give a simple yes or no answer about whether the G4 uses Raman Spectroscopy convinces me more than ever that the G4 as advertsied by CDEx and its promoters DOES NOT EXIST.
I believe this with a very high degree of certainty.
Among the reasons I have come to this conclusion are as follows:
1. Anyone that has followed this scam over the years knows that whenever a old CEO (bad) leaves and a new CEO (good) enters, new concept products (they don't exist) are introduced along with newly authorized treasury shares.
When JB became the latest CEO in Septeber of 2010 it was followed by the introduction of the G4, the pocket scanner, and 200 million newly authorized treasury shares.
2. Loch Harris/CDEX have consistently advertised and promoted concept products that have never came to fruition. However, I have no doubt that these false and misleading promotions SOLD PP SHARES.
Valimed was the most successful product ever sold to my knowledge, but one can hardly call 25 units in 6-7 years successful. Like all scams, sales of Valimeds have been shrouded in secrecy with 25 units allegedly in hospitals. Of those 25 units, common shareholders do not know whether they were sold, leased, gifted, or on loan. We do know that several were returned by the hospitals because they did not perform as advertised or were simply unreliable.
3. The introduction of the G4 has followed the exact same advertisng pattern as all past Loch/CDEx concept products, namely, selling the light at the end of the tunnel. In other words, advertising and promoting a product that is not yet available nor has the PROOF OF VIABILITY even been established.
In March, 2011 a file was submitted to the USPTO showing a picture of the G4 and a 46 page G4 Instruction Manual which allowed one to scroll thru the first 6 pages. IMO, this was highly misleading and suggested that the G4 was in production and a comprehensive manual had already been written. There is no company in my experience that writes a comprehensive manual when the product is still very early in development.
4. The manual claimed that the G4 utilizes a combination of Raman and Emission Spectroscopy. I have asked one poster which seems to be very knowlegable about the inner working of CDEx to verify what CDEx has published as fact, but I have yet to receive an answer. If Raman Spectroscopy has been added as a diagnostic tool I applaud CDEx for striving to improve their product, but it does raise several technique issues.
5. One issue is development time. It is absolutely unbelievable that a fully documented instrument could have been developed between the time JB came on board in September, 2010 and the time the G4 file was submitted to the USPTO in March 2011- THAT'S ONLY SIX MONTHS! Remember, before JB came on board the company was broke, Poteet et al were suing CDEx, and there was no productive activity.
I believe one of two possible events occurred, either the CDEx technical staff produced a new, documented analytical instrument in an AMAZINGLY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME or the G4 file submitted to the USPTO was highly misleading and designed to sell PP shares.
I was unaware of the G4 image on the USPTO site from the time it was submitted in March, 2011 until the link was publicly posted in later October, 2011. That is an 8 month period and that is plenty of time to sell the light at the end of the tunnel to PP investors using the USPTO image as a carrot- standard operating procedure of LOCH/CDEx.
6. The G4 if it exists as advertised would require many technical hurdles to overcome, among them is NEW SIGNATURES. When CDEX and its promoters began advertising the new G4 there was NEVER a public disclosure to my knowledge that NEW SIGNATURES WERE REQUIRED. Not until I made the referenced post below did pennstreet acknowledge that new signatures were required by posting to me, "nobody said that new signatured weren't required."
If I was selling PP's, I certainly wouldn't want investors to know that a ton of signatures would be required before the product is viable.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67800959
So how many signatures were available when CDEx submitted the image to the USPTO? How many signatures were availble at the ASHP show? How many signatures are currently available? Why has CDEX not officially disclosed this information like they have with Valimed? Would it hinder sales (not G4's)?
7. If the G4 is being advertisied with smoke and mirrors like most LOCH/CDEx concept products have in the past, there will be inevitable inconsistencies with their version of the truth.
For example, pennstreet has claimed on many occasions that he has seen the G4 perform perfectly using vials, IV bags, syringes etc. He has observed it identify samples flawlessly in the lab, at the ASHP show and has even allegedly brought "his expert" to validify its performance at a lab demo.
Here is an aggravating statement he posted earlier this month which is completely inconsistent with all those pasts posts claiming how wonderful all the demonstrations have been:
"I believe the demonstrations for the G4 are going to be a well liked demo."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70428659
"Are going to be?" Not "are" or "have been"? LOL! Whoops!
That makes me think there hasn't even been a real demo yet other than a rigged one at best. Of course, this is completely consistent with most all past LOCH/CDEx concept products with their rigged demos.
8. Of the many technical hurdles one involves interferences. Without going into details, Raman emmissions are very weak when compares to fluorescent emmissons and it would require some very clever design to prevent the fluorescent emmissions from interfering with the weak Raman vibrational emmissions. I'll leave the details of that for the experts which I am not.
9. The determination of med concentration or strength while contained in a plethora of different IV bags, vials , bottles, syringes... etc. is a technical hurdle. I have opined on that subject in the link provided above.
10. Ask an expert about software development. As a rule of thumb, it takes twice as long to develop the software as it does the hardware. Not only has CDEx purported to have developed an instrument extremely more sophisticated than the Valimed, they have purported to have developed the software as well in an ASTONISHINGLY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. How many years did it take CDEx to develop Valimed to a product of "exceptable usefulness" in a niche market? That, IMO, is check mate and is what compels me to believe the G4 is just more of the same old BS different CEO, different day.
Can they produce what they've been advertising? I don't know, maybe down the line, but I don't believe thay have it yet. However, if you buy in now you'll get in on the ground floor I suppose. Read the prospectus.
Pennstreet, can you tell me whether the G4 uses RAMAN SPECROSCOPY or not? I've asked this question numerous times without a response.
Also, where can one get a list of the new signatures required for the G4? Is there a published list available like with Valimed?
Those are two simple questions that I'd appreciate an answer to before we travel all the way to Tucson to witness a demonstration as you have suggested.
Thank you.
"And, may I add, the light at the end of the tunnel may be the perfect thing to have said."
Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere, unfortunately for shareholders, throughout the history of the LOCH HARRIS/CDEX scam, the end of the tunnel has never been reached.
"How about asking for a demonstration of the G4?
A much more professional and/or grown up question to ask.
But if you could go there in person, and ask your question in person, I think that would be a real stand up thing to do."
I've already tried to arrange a demo in the presence of a real expert and an investigative reporter.
THE RESPONSE FROM CDEx WAS "THANKS, BUT NO THANKS."
But I will say, that was under the leadership of MP during what you refer to as the scam years.
"diddy, There are no crooks at Cdex."
What you mean to say is that there are NO LONGER ANY CROOKS at CDEX according to your own admission.
It was a scam for 9 years with crooks running the show, but now they have been removed and CDEx is clean as a whistle?
"Cdex has been truthful and is truthful.All anyone has to do is call them and ask your questions.
Hello CDEX can I ask you all a question? Are you crooks rippin' off investors?
No? OK, thank you.
"Diddy has criminal activity...
Careful John, I've been allowing those type posts to remain on these boards for a purpose.
Well Pennstreet, now that I know that you have declared CDEx "no longer a scam" I will have a pleasant weekend and I hope you have one too.
Thank goodness for the "new team"!
HIGH FIVE.
Calling up the office and talking to JB would be like calling up the office and talking to MP- a complete waste.
Nothing has changed.
"...No hype on bogus pr's, as was the norm from the loch days and first 9 years of Cdex."
- pennstreet
"Cdex moved pass the Penny Stock scamster stuff, when a true business man and leader was brought in by pper's."
-pennstreet
"Gemmni did not ever say the SP had to be a nickel as "YOU STATED".
Only crow said that, which was a lie."
Crow said that because that's what was written in the agreement.
You should have looked it up before calling him a liar.
Hey, the MINI-PUMP is working!!!!!!
And I'm giving you a lot of credit for that Penn for your promotional skills!
HIGH FIVE!
LOL! Would ya look at Pennstreet (a CDEx stock promoter and expert on all things CDEx) defend PP investors buying at a nickel or EVEN A DIME!
It's pretty obvious [to me] that there recent MINI-PUMP has landed a few PP suckers.
You are correct though Pennstreet, it is their choice.
I just wonder what they're being told after they sign the NDA.
Remember CDEX's last CEO predicted revenues of 50 MILLION DOLLARS within five years (mas o menos), but those were during the scam years according to Pennstreet.
CDEx has the good guys now.
High Five Penn.
First, he has to talk to Poteet to determine whether CDEx IS or IS NOT claiming to be using Raman Spectroscopy in their IG4.
I think the answer to this question may prove to be a dilemma for our persistent stock promoter from Lubbock.
"...No hype on bogus pr's, as was the norm from the loch days and first 9 years of Cdex."
-pennstreet
Missed the first edit, but I did catch the "opps" typo! LOL
Oops, yeah, that's what I was tryin' to say.
Thanks for the correction.
Oh.... I might still be able to edit.
~
This guy could also be penny's "expert" that "visited the lab to see a demo".
Penny said he was a doctor that had just finished his residency. Of course, he would want us to know he's a local boy from Lubbock so he said he was from ... what was it? Alabama?
Bear in mind that up until recently, when JB took over, pennstreet has admitted that LOCH/CDEx was a scam:
pennstreet...
"Atxman made a claim that JB and MP go back to the loch days
JB has been one of the players in this, and a few other penny stock scams. There is a large inner core that don't all show their public face at the same time. You have seen this exact example when LOCH "reorganized" into CDEx (LOCH II). It's the same players, all on the same team. They make money by promoting BILLION DOLLAR TECH that doesn't really do anything worth BILLIONS. They make money by selling PP shares. They do it all very well. They reorganized under CDEx ... they will reorganize most likely again under the same, or a different name with a new frontman they have chosen from the inner (trusted) circle. I told the boards this over a year ago.
YOU NEVER HAND THE KEYS TO SOMEONE THAT IS NOT 100% PART OF THE SCAM. That's 101 stuff in SCAM circles.
The honest shareholders can either buy, sell or hold... those are their only choices.(the only exception to this were the OOC settlements). Their voting power or legal power is not enough to change anything that the insiders do not want to change themselves.... if you are being told anything but this... it is an outright lie that the insiders want you to believe. The APA reorg from LOCH to CDEx was an example of this. BRILLIANT move and it fooled almost everyone. ALMOST...
Look into the history that Gemini, RB, MB, MP, JB and many others have together. This is not their first and only rodeo.
Sadly, if you are being told info that seperates the inner circle you simple fell into their trap. Your exhaustive energies (dozens of posts trying to support the SCAM'S lies to shareholders) to attempt to convince the VERY, VERY smart people on this board will not work. They understand the motivation and are no longer trapped by the emotions of "THE TECH IS WORTH BILLIONS !!!" or "WE ARE ALL GONNA BE RICH!!!".
Any shareholders that still believes the SCAM artist claims are being held captive by their own greed to make, or recover cash. THAT is what the SCAM artists rely on. YOU seem to be promoting an IDEA that is greed motivated.
YOUR idea that JB is "different" is on sources that are the SCAM artists themselves. BIGG (TM ME!!) MISTAKE.
YOUR idea that WP can "tweak" the worthless TECH to BILLION DOALLR TECH status is on sources that are the SCAM artists themselves. BIGG MISTAKE !!!
I am sorry for you if you have lost money in this investment. It hurts to go from a $225 (LOCH EQUIVALENT PRICE pre-REORG) down to 7 cents. there is no recovery when the TECH is not worth BILLIONS.
Unfortunatley your sources are the scam artists themselves... even if they tell you they are not SCAM artists, or that they didn't know the SCAM artists. DON'T BE FOOLED BY YOUR INNER SCAM SOURCES !!! They are lying to you.
Those on this board have figured out the SCAM... and can predict the next steps before they even happen sometimes. It's not too difficult once you remove your emotions of greed or revenge.
Why do I know this all for a FACT ?
I have an inner source.
Yes, I have talked to JB back in the LOCH days.
Bigg deal.
But yes, I know for a FACT that he is a SCAM artists.
Butt don't expect him to tell you that... or the truth about when he and MP first met. SCAM ARTISTS LIE.
Get it yet ?
~Kidd
~out
Pennstreet, does the G4 use Raman Spectroscopy? Why is it so hard to answer a simple question?
Some potential buyers (educated buyers) want to know?