The company has already publically revealed that they are in negotiations. Or to be more specific two companies say they are and one apparently claims that they weren’t. (Likely a false claim that would easily be disproven in Court.). They also stated that the funders were amendable to better terms than in the past, at least until they stopped communicating. What we’ve learned here is that they are talking again.

I think it would have been material information had he put a date on the closure of the negotiation or revealed that it was actually settled.

I do think this is positive news though. And I think the capital firms would be idiotic to seriously push for receivership. This was just a ploy to go for better terms. It says something about the value proposition of this deal, though it’s obviously speculative like everything in penny land.

The timing of their threat is the tell. This is old debt - why didn’t they make noise until now? It’s such a small sum I bet they hammer this out in days or less.

SEC case if anyone is interested.

Calling them out like this in a press release was pretty bold...

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2019/comp24431.pdf

Hollister bio... for those interested. The guy has been in the canna, pharma and finance spaces for a long time.
This article predates his time at imaging3.


https://www.northsightcapital.com/northsight-capital-appoints-pharmaceutical-and-biotech-sales-industry-veteran-john-b-hollister-as-chief-executive-officer/

It was sarcasm.

Boilerplate.

There can be no guarantee that you’ll ever make any money on any stock on any exchange anywhere.
There can be no guarantee that you won’t get hit by a bus today either.

The ticker exploded today, thanks much for the reply.

A poster on the IGNG board found more information about the acquiring company which looks pretty favorable.

The acquisition should close by the end of the month. Thanks again.

Thanks! I’m curious if any of the board experts have an opinion on this one?

Anyone know anything about IGNG and GBI inc? A medical device otcbb being acquired by a cannabis company...

Very important filing up top, people should read.

It looks like they have refined some of the descriptions of the technology on their website. People with any interest should take a look. I suspect their advisory board helped with this.

Usual disclosures apply: I am invested but I haven’t bet the farm, I have some experience and interest in this kind of tech whether this company makes it or not, I firmly believe pennies are all high risk including this one.

All investors should do their due diligence.

The stock has clearly lost value from the initial gain after the reverse split. Common occurrence after reverse splits and one that was addressed on this board. Also one that any investor with even a hint of experience would recognize as a risk.

The company’s website for a long time has suggested they would be filing first with a 3d non-continuous mode to be followed (if they actually get approved) with an application for the continuous mode. This is not new at all and it’s also not just 2d. It’s not continuous.

If you believe the company has made progress on this tech then this isn’t necessarily a bad move. Image quality and radiation dose were two items on the list from the old 510k applications. If you don’t believe the company has the tech then this doesn’t really matter. For what it’s worth they have announced a partnership with a well known consulting house to work on the hardware verification, a group I looked into. They are the reaI deal. They also recently stated that the work has actually started so this is more than a random announcement of an agreement.

Anyway I suggest anyone following this company look at the piece I put in the intro information from the fda regarding cone beam ct and this will make sense. There is also good information out there, also from the fda, regarding recent radiation safety initiatives.

Excellent information. It’s also worth bearing in mind that a past leader of this very site was also in hot water some time ago, putting the entire network in doubt.

In addition, there have been posters on this page who made plenty of money during the run up of this stock years ago, despite their personal reservations. One made nearly a million bucks as I recall; I could probably pull the post from the archives.

Always good for investors to judge very carefully where they get their information from. Ethics are a rare commodity wherever you are in the market.

A decent discussion of the product and one of the consultants. I do hope they get past this forum and more out into the larger investing world soon. For example their recent presentation at an investors conference. Get that presentation out into the public and let a broader audience take a look.

http://moneytv.net

Thanks for the exchange - I hope they are on to something too and can make it fruitful. The board is always open and I’m trying to not let it swing too far in either direction. I hope you can contribute more in the future. It would be nice to have a group of level headed investors on here sounding things out. Good luck to you as well.

i'm an old timer too with this one and i agree with some of these thoughts but not others. i wasn't a bag holder either but i'm also not a short player. i'm interested mainly because this is my industry and yes, i'm invested. but i haven't bet the farm on this. i'm lucky in that i have some play money. if this comes through, i'll do very well again but if not, oh well.

agree, moneytv is not a great venue. though in micro land, there really aren't that many great venues to publicize a company. they had a recent presentation at a micro investor conference and it would be nice to see the presentation - i requested it. if any of the company folks still view this site, how about throwing investors a bone and putting your slide deck on the website? anyway, i'm not a big moneytv fan, i would rather have the company out in conferences, or putting new demos up on their site (which is completely legal) and so on.

agree, the former ceo tried to pull a fast one and was caught on it. the history is out there. i'll add more to that by saying he was also a fool to think submitting a 510K for this machine at THAT TIME would be a cakewalk. at THAT TIME i don't believe there were any FDA approved products that were close to this with the exception of the o-arm and perhaps one dental device which were not out for very long. moreover, the application was for all modes this device can perform in - which included the most advanced mode of continuous HIGH SPEED 3d imaging. again, he limited the field from which he could make a claim of equivalency. finally, if you read the FDA response to the submissions, a lot of it was just shi$ty work. the hazard analysis which should have been bread an butter was not done correctly. the images for comparison were not in DICOM format which is a standard. if your claim is that you can produce accurate 3d imaging at blazing speeds and that are equivalent (or better) to whatever is out there, why not invest the money to get decent images? i'm in the business, it's not hard!,

but all of that doesn't mean there is nothing to this machine at all.

disagree also that the technology is dead in the water because of the FDA, or doesn't exist, or anything remotely close. there are MANY competing interests at play here and to think it's simply a big conspiracy of equipment manufactures to tie down the FDA to any single tech is silly. do insurers have a role in this? absolutely. would they want to keep eating the overhead of a million dollar plus machines when for many exams a cheapo spinning fluoroscope would do? no. on the other hand, would hospitals and clinics who don't have an option for advanced imaging like the opportunity to invest relatively little capital for a piece of equipment that could potentially be a game changer in terms of revenue? yes. (think interventional procedures.)

the technology is REAL folks. do NOT take my word for it. there are tons of articles about cone beam if people are interested. there are FDA approved products TODAY that use the same basic tech. the FDA itself has taken closer looks at how to evaluate these systems. take a look at the presentation i linked up top. that didn't exist years ago when the old hack was working on this. i've given clues how to find all of that up at the top of this page. imaging3's claim is basically that they can do this faster, bigger, and cheaper than any other systems. the difference is that this time there will be more to compare with if they submit the newest 510K properly.

finally i disagree that the new ceo and the newly installed team have anything to do with the old execs. they have publicly stated that and it would be completely nuts to lie about that given the history of SEC action that happened years ago. the new team/new consultants have decent reputations. having a new cto who was a Varian exec for a long time is a major plus. Unless of course, you think he's part of the new conspiracy. having a scientific advisory board with a known player in the field as its head is a plus. and so on. unless you believe this is all part of the conspiracy.

Investor Conference today:

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/06/01/1515522/0/en/Imaging3-to-Present-at-the-8th-Annual-LD-Micro-Invitational-Conference.html

A good update on progress... Doing more demonstrations, starting work on updates to hardware, hazard analysis, etc. Not in love with the venue but it is what it is. Worth taking a look.


http://moneytv.net/

A new addition to the board. Interesting bio.

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/04/30/1489933/0/en/Imaging3-Announces-Appointment-of-George-Zdasiuk-to-Board-of-Directors.html

A new agreement and other activity...

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/03/27/1453701/0/en/Imaging3-Announces-Signing-of-Agreement-to-Work-With-Experien-Group.html


For those interested there was a beloved money tv update a few days ago as well.

The addition of the new ceo, cfo, advisory board, BOD member and new consultancy agreements make this the busiest year in many for this company. There was also the reverse split, a reminder not to play in this space unless you can tolerate risk.

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/03/22/1444396/0/en/Imaging3-Announces-Appointment-of-Jeffrey-N-Peterson-to-Board-of-Directors.html

It’s unclear though I believe addressing this is part of the hardware verification which isn’t done. Apparently they have costed that with a known group in this field. The software verification is complete. There was a recent press release identifying a new agreement with Halteres Associates which is an interesting outfit. They also hired a new CFO.

As others have pointed out the reverse split occurred. In most reverse splits stock prices drop and in many cases small shareholders can lose their shares. Like all pennies, this one has very significant risk.

http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/03/08/1418462/0/en/Imaging3-Announces-the-Appointment-of-Joe-Biehl-as-CFO.html

You bet. For what it’s worth another moneytv popped out yesterday. :0

The thing I did find interesting is that the ceo stated the software validation is complete, which I knew and that the hardware validation contract has been priced. Didn’t know that part.

I would like to see those results as hardware validation was an issue with the last submission years ago. Hope they can follow through on that.

pennies make all kinds of claims which is why you invest in them prudently, if at all. most who play this game shouldn't.

and company mismanagement is the penny stock investor's shield against everything...except much of the time the investor doesn't hold him/herself to the same level of accountability when investing in duds.

anyway, without a doubt this company was mismanaged right into bankruptcy and how that happened is ugly. (incidentally, the press release today was pretty forthcoming about that issue, which is refreshing.)

but it is interesting that with new management, they came out of bk although still with weak financing, defended one major case up through the SC, completed one major portion of 510k prep work (which I verified), started recruiting an advisory board, and so on.

giving them the benefit of the doubt for just a moment, if the transform rate is as claimed then it would be reasonable to look for a JV or maybe real (as opposed to fly by night) VC funding. we don't know whether that is happening or not. we do know that there has been a lot of debt restructuring during and after a bankruptcy. that may or may not seal the deal against more typical methods of funding.

re computational limits, that may be an issue but given the amount of literature out there, clearly that hasn't been enough to deter a lot of research in this field. nor have these limits prevented targeted applications from being developed and marketed. this is not new technology at its core. there are dental and veterinary applications out there now. but so far, with the semi-exception of the o-arm, no one has really chased a large bore device at least in the public eye.

there may be a second issue here which is that there hasn't been a good framework to evaluate these systems from either technical or regulatory perspectives. the fda piece i referred to previously from a couple of years ago basically states that.

that said, it also looks like that is changing, again from the FDA piece and from current literature. which, again assuming this company is on the up-and-up, is a good thing in case they re-submit.
so we're left with, "it can't be done" vs "it can't be evaluated" vs "it probably can be done but this isn't the company to do it" vs "they are headed in the right direction". investors have to decide that on their own.

without any doubt, there are a lot of ways that the approach to getting this cleared and monetized could have been better in the past. it didn't happen PRECISELY because the guy in charge was naive about comparing this technology to c-arm and the relative ease of getting those systems cleared in the past. in reality, this is only partially comparable to standard fluoroscopy. and then he went on to make silly, fraudulent claims and tanked the company.

i don't know whether the company is working towards a joint venture or not, but neither does anyone else. i'm sure they won't say.

but the technology is real, it's cone beam CT. anyone interested in this company should read up on that.

there are a few things that have changed now. i pointed some of them out.

one thing i didn't mention is that the market and even the FDA seems to have more interest in applications of this technology than years ago. there is plenty out there about that. there is even a slide deck from the FDA about this which anyone can read. it's from a couple of years ago, well after this company made their fda submissions. it is a very good read.

the major claims this company makes are around the speed of their transforms, radiation, portability, image quality, etc. from the tech perspective, these are really the claims of interest. the company quotes transform speeds which are next level if true.

part of what i do relies on stuff like this. mark my words, the first company to get a decent system out there, with reasonable cost, low maintenance, low radiation, portability, and so on will definitely redefine this market.

some people on this board made a killing on this stock too back in the day. some of them knowing there were issues with the company.

being a bit more objective, what you can say is that:

the previous CEO absolutely made bad/deceiving statements about the 510k submissions years ago and got sanctioned for it. he's gone but may be e a significant shareholder even now.
the SEC notices from way back are plastered all over this board.
a new president took over a few years ago too and recently a new ceo as well.
a scientific advisory board is being created and 2 members (both radiologists) are on board so far.
part of the re-submission work is reportedly done, i also confirmed that through other means in case anyone cares. (done by a real company with a good reputation.)
the patents are in the public domain.
financing as always remains an issue.
the company has faced lawsuits and there is litigation now.

as far as the technology goes, there are some similar products out there. if you know how to search, you can find one that is very similar though created long after imaging3 went into this business. you'll even find representative imaging and loops. the technology does work.

like all pennies, lots of risk and like many, a lot of mismanagement in the past. but for what it's worth, there is real tech, a potential market and a different administration in place.

it doesn't necessarily have to be as crisp as an mri or ct though that would obviously be great. remember the "fuzzy" technology (ultrasound) you made an example of is being used all the time for simple procedures. i have done these myself. (and i agree, it's damn grainy and yet we use it and are happy about it.)

if dean has produced workable 3d realtime fluoro...where you can check equipment positioning from xyz angles nearly instantaneously...he has achieved something remarkable even if the image is not perfect yet.

summary attempt...

No it's not exactly the same. Snik (?) did a fairly good job of summarizing what was shown. i will try to provide some more detail as objectively as i can...

the video opens with a shot of the dvis in the background slowly spinning around the phantom hand. in the foreground are two monitors - on the left is a small display of the hand rotating in 2d. dean is not on camera at all but he states he was present and is operating the software. he also states that the image presented is lower resolution than what he intends to market - he attributes that to the software which he is using for this presentation which is apparently a development version.

anyway a bit after the video starts he opens a window on the right side monitor and you see the hand in a 3d construct in one plane. it seems to be cycling through acquisitions - i didn't time it but i would guess for around 30-40 seconds. (someone should correct me on this.) after that you see the 3d construct start rotating in all 3 axes. he states he is making the software do this rotation. the camera pans back and forth between the dvis and the two monitors a few times; for what it's worth it does seem to be a continuous shot.

i think that's a basic and fairly accurate description of what happened.

let the games begin...

calm down.

getting an outside opinion is great...one caveat, if you get 10 radiologists in a room and ask about one film, you'll often come back with 11 opinions. take it from someone who's been there both on the reading end and on the receiving end. that's why most of us read our own critical films on top of getting a radiologist's opinion.

your question, such as it was, was loaded and not terribly concise. sorry. kudos for trying - and kudos to kkg for putting his up there as well. soft pedaling was not the issue. bias was the issue.

educating yourself about the technology and about this company is great. all people interested in this stock should take the time to do so. yes, i want to know about this "stuff" and i haven't waited around for the hens on this board to educate me. many of the ultaBEARS who got crispy investing in this and losing big should have educated themselves way before betting the family farm. (educating themselves on the technology and on investing in penny stocks too.) instead, we're subject to a neverending stream of vitriol and blather. enough said.

re my personal opinion, not that you should care, but you can look back at my sporadic posts and you will see that i LONG ago stated i thought a pma would be better to prove this technology. i also understood why the company went the way it did, which seems to me to be a mistimed business decision based on old data regarding fda standards. (conspiracy theorists will say based on not wanting the scrutiny of trials.) a pma would do a lot to remove the subjective "we think it'll work well enough" and replace it with the objective "we compared it rigorously with the standard approaches and it works better". the trials would also help define the appropriate uses of this technology, something i've always been concerned about. finally, nothing works better to market your product than a well done trial. the company chose not to go that route - i believe largely because the breakaway product did not do so either. that's understandable...not optimal in my opinion...but understandable. for now i just have to wait until he either demonstrates something that i can evaluate myself (in some limited way), decides to do trials or goes bankrupt. all are possibilities...

finally, kkg is not the only expert on the board or in the world. we don't know his credentials, as we don't know yours or mine for that matter. dr fishman has credentials in academia a mile long which is why i highly doubt he'll entertain this nonsense for much longer. that said, if you're going to ask the guru a question, a well thought out, well constructed one would be more fruitful. even then, if you get an answer, you're getting one person's opinion and nothing more.

Come on... Really? The fox news defense? You loaded the question ... And actually it isn't clear what you're asking for anyway. Are you asking whether this technology can or does exist? Are you asking his opinion of the company? Are you asking for a technical review?

One could easily bias the question from the other side... Good doctor please give us your opinion on a revolutionary new product being developed by an established company in California (greater than ten years), patented, that renders in less than two seconds, is portable and -insert deans speech here-.

(I know people will say "but dean hasn't proven he can do it in two seconds" and so on. That's not relevant since the doctor has no way of knowing whether a random poster is telling the truth.)

So, incrementally the question stems are not false (neither yours nor my play version above)... But they are biased.

Overall I think KKG did a better job by just sticking with a technical comment and question. I still bet he doesn't waste any more time on this.

To be fair your original question was formulated in a very biased way. His two line answers remind me of the "yeah yeah" answers I give my own patients when they start running at the mouth. As for what he said he may indeed be rendering at "real time" speeds. But of course he's at Hopkins... That's a far far cry from the trenches where the grunts like me are. I can safely assure you that systems like dvis are not in routine use in community practice- neither is the o arm for that matter. (This actually speaks to whether there is a real market for this equipment at all. The company would say yes because of price and flexibility... But there is still an outstanding question of utility that is unanswered.)

Kkg's question was less biased and it will be interesting to see if the good doctor takes the time to reply. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if he banishes this thread altogether, his site is clearly aimed at medical professionals and not a bunch of penny stock investors.

there is a purported "live blog" from the meeting being posted on yahoo...not sure of the veracity but for those who want to check it out.

most of the message board stuff (here there everywhere) is hooey but at least it's good for a laugh...lightens an otherwise tough day at work.
sc

that is one possibility. there are plenty of others:

it could also mean syprosoft is not as good as their chintzy website claims and so they left the picture.

it could also mean they are superstars and were inapproprately tasked.

it could also mean the specific task that they were hired to do was completed.

there are many possibilities, the data is insufficient to reach a conclusion on why they aren't involved now. you can simply state they were involved and now they aren't.

adrian,

good question and good DD. i found this contract as well while studying up on imgg. not that you should take my word for it, but i THINK there was at least one other software consultant on board which may have entered the picture after this one. oddly enough, i found the other company through a facebook page. i'm sorry i can't recall the name.

then of course there is jack...

i actually view these linkages as evidence that development activity seems to have continued at some simmering level. i have also tried to see if there have been reports of cone beam ct fluoro with real time rendering being tested out of toshiba in tustin since rumor has it that's where another prototype resides (or resided). i did find very some interesting articles but before the rumor mill grinds away, i will say none of these DEFINITIVELY demonstrated the link between imgg and toshiba.

so all of that leaves us in exactly the same position as before, waiting on an answer.

just to be clear here...(and to restate the obvious):

the video showed fluoro in 2d and a rendered image in 3d. the missing piece was generation of a live or real time render.

i agree with bohring that a portable ct would have utility - though i think the dominion has been compared to a 12 slice system which limits it diagnostically somewhat. even fluoro in 2d but with the ability to rotate in one plane would be a useful tool. but the money still has to be in real time 3d...

for a better sense of what this could look like, youtube the kodak 9000 dental system. it's an approved cone beam system for endodontics with postprocessed imaging. imagine doing those tricks real time in an OR. this is what i HOPE the company will provide - a genuine breakthrough system.

born you can find it if you look...fraud...scam...etc. plenty of insinuation that dean's moves are somehow not above board. look, they say where there's smoke, there's fire. but in this case, i keep seeing people point out the "smoke" but never turn up the fire. or do anything serious about their accusations. that leads me to conclude these statements are mainly made out of anger and not much else.

snapple, to answer your question, i don't know. obviously i'm hopeful but i've not put a date on it. i think a lot of people looked to turn a quick buck here precisely because they believed all kinds of dates which turned out to be baloney. i invested because i like the technology and i know the potential AND as far as i've been able to discover, this co is the only one trying to push a device with the claimed processing speed through right now.

adrian, thanks for the reply - and yes, i share your first thoughts.

to answer your question, no i'm not back in...i never bailed out. i just stopped posting here. (i have posted a few times over at the yahoo mess since may.) incidentally the co got back to me quickstyle after that message.

as for being idealistic, i don't agree but i don't take that as an insult either. i think its a matter of perspective. in the interest of full disclosure, i will state i don't have that much to lose here. i bought a large number of shares early and have added here and there throughout. in comparison to the rest of my portfolio it's quite small. i suppose the cynic would say i can afford to be idealistic. anyway don't take as a boast - i did what i advocate anyone else would do when i invested in this co. i made a determination of the value of this product, the company, made a determination of risk involved and knowing my own risk tolerance and i played accordingly. if i lose, it's my own damn fault and i'll survive just fine.

that's REALISM not idealism.

mr sano,

thanks for your reply and relieving me of my fear that you had gone and flipped of the deep end - like many of the others on this board. as i said before, i often don't agree with you and that's ok.

re the innovation, i suppose you are inquiring in the technical sense? as in what exactly the new algorithms are? or rather what dean and co have done to enhance the processing speed of the rendering algorithms out there? those are fine questions and i wish you well in seeking the answers - i suspect you wouldn't get them even if you swore your life on a stack of NDAs. and though that might arouse suspicion in some, in me it doesn't.

i would love to relate a personal story here about some of my own adventures (or misadventures) in research. i have one that directly relates. but i won't in the interest of time. i'm also not terribly qualified to comment on software - my expertise is on the user end.

re your observations about the way dean promotes, i share some of the same queasy feelings. but by way of analogy, large corporations release all kinds of footnotes, comments, etc., about their own earnings statements all the time. we as investors have just learned to brush these off as spin. i see dean's efforts in the same light. that's business...that's kept the light's on for now. there is still a large gap between spin and fraud which is what many of the conspiracy folks essentially say he is committing.

as to your theories about why do the deal now, i think those are reasonable. the balance sheet obviously doesn't look good. there is always the possibility of further AI requests, etc. as i stated in my post, i like seeing investors come in even with a discounted entry. i like that MUCH better than using a credit facility and better than having the company constantly owe dean. even with the discount, i honestly don't find the deal that intolerable - like i said, how often does a VC swoop in on a little company to stuff the BOD on tranche one? Giving them some shares to enhance cash for a year is not a bad exchange. Who cares if they sell on the open market (which I doubt they will)? If not anything else, this little stock has proven remarkably resilient over the long haul (remember it wasn't too long ago it was trading at .07) I think until our singular material even occurs, we'll continue to see the market value this in the mid 20s, low 30s.

anyway, i will add two theories to your list. one potentially more optimistic - that the warrants virtually guarantee further working capital should this get approved. (in case, as i suspect, the stock DOESN'T explode on approval.)

the other theory is not as optimistic (sorry friends, told you i wasn't a pumper). perhaps his credit facilities were withdrawn?

anyway, i've written enough to last a month or two. i appreciate your reply, gl to you.

mr sano,

i suffered through months of blather from know-it-alls on both sides of this thing, all sorts of laughable date predictions, rationalizations of why this and that happened, foam at the mouth idiocy from our nimrod former moderator/censor, and general bs from the multitude of ignorant cretins who inhabit this board and wasn't tempted to write in once. (i swore off this place months ago.)

that is until your last few posts. man, i was into your comments until a few posts ago. though i don't usually agree with what you say, i think you've raised some interesting points over the past year or so. i also think you got bashed a lot unnecessarily.

so is there any way you could please, please, please assure me that you have not joined the conspiracy theorist wing of the anti debate? is it possible for once that this company actually sought venture capital, made/accepted a deal, and that's it? do you all realize that investment is actually the best thing in addition to owner equity - and greatly preferable to debt. i for one am happy that they are finacing this way instead of doing another loan from dean to the company. is it possible that the relative stablilty of the shareprice in this range reflects the actual market value?

yes, yes.. the rabid conspiratorialists will say that poor dean threw all of us little ignorant shareholders under the bus by discounting the shares by 20-30%. really? it's a damn miracle those companies didn't buy heavy and demand seats on the BOD.

since i'm on a roll here let me give my take on some of the other conspiracy theories out there....

another poster (who happened to make some nice change on this stock - by his own admission) predicted a massive, catastrophic sell off over the past day or two. huh? where? of course, the answer is that it hasn't happened. to this, the conspiracy theorists retort, "oh but it will. the conspiracy is much deeper than we thought." sano, your own post suggests that it's actually a slow bleed of shares, apparently orchestrated by two VC companies who are foaming at the mouths to make a whopping 2 or 3 hundred grand. you lost me there sano. really. but but but the warrants, you say.... the WARRANTS!!!! you know what? if this company uses this money to stay afloat long enough for something to actually happen, i don't give a skunk's bucket if the VCs exercise their warrants and make it to the forbes billionaire list.

i've heard this same flat earth society rhetoric for months and months and months. honestly, you guys should gang up and make your own ihub teabag party chapter. when the preferred shares were liberated, the whole thing was supposed to sink to the depths of hell, remember? didn't happen. likewise, dean has been endlessly scheming to dilute this to oblivion by authorizing more shares right? ooops, except that the shareholder meeting gets postponed over and over again. and as another rabid poster (who happens to be on the pro- side) has repeatedly pointed out, the o/s currently doesn't match the authorized. why not? what's the hold up? let's get this gang-b*ng underway already?! no one ever answers that. oh sorry, the conspiracists say it's because the sec is standing on deano's neck keeping him from further screwing us. because the sec has nothing better to do than to watch over a 12 person company night and day. bravo, sec! now if they had just done that with the investment banks...

likewise, no one ever addresses the well reported mess ups at the fda which happen to coincide with this submission. hmmm...maybe the conspiracy IS deeper than i thought. heh heh.

umm what else? there's the show us your prototype conspiracy. because see that's what all development stage companies do, they just go put up web sites and show off their development stage products. maybe they drive 'em around the block with the ice cream music on so all the kiddies can see the prototype too. let me use an analogy here from my own field... anyone care to guess how many potentially life saving compounds the major pharmaceutical companies have unpublished data on? hundreds...if not thousands at any one time. economics simply don't allow them to pursue even PUBLISHING THEIR DATA let alone advance most of these drug candidates forward.

medicine, pharmaceuticals, medical devices...these are not open architecture cultures. people don't just share because a few nimrods on a bulletin board say so.

related to this theory is the, "he should never have done a 510k for this". really? how many of you have done a 510k? or a pma? or even published an article in a real journal? or frankly have any education better than a bachelor's from podunk state? (i can raise my hand on the last two.) the fact is that like it or not, breakaway did a 510k with the o-arm. for each aspect of this item's performance, there is a reasonable claim to be made for identifying a predicate device to compare to. i myself commented on this board ages ago that perhaps a pma would have been better. i did that more so because i want to see what kind of havoc my colleagues may be capable of with this thing in their hands.

anything else? let's see, there's a whole gaggle of morons who keep repeating, "but dean said this and dean said that." you know what dean said? he said whatever it took to keep his company afloat and he managed to do that. you know what that's called? business. if you really feel he's defrauded you, do something about it. whatever you do, for pete's sake, stop hashing out the message board equivalent of the walk of shame again and again. you're embarassing yourselves.

in the end, that's basically what i hear when i hear the conspiracists go off. it's is a bunch of babies who either got in too late, sold too early, invested way too much or found some other way to get their feelings hurt. perhaps some of them were too caught up in the church of dean and got hurt that way. i suspect many, if not all of them were too busy writing their own rags to riches stories to do any DD, figure out there own risk tolerance, or do any critical thinking about this company at all.

so because i've subjected you to a tome, i'll help you guys out.

IT'S AN ULTRA RISKY MICRO-MICRO-CAP COMPANY WITH A ROI THAT DEPENDS COMPLETELY ON ONE SINGULAR MATERIAL EVENT.

got it? now my blood pressure's up...so i will re-lurk asap.

doc's perspective

or at least one doc's perspective....

caveats.. i am invested, i'm not a radiologist (i'm an internist with an interest in radiology) and have some experience in business. i'm neither a pumper nor basher and i'm not so invested that i would lose my shirt if this goes sour.

i have two observations about the videos and comments made here and at yahoo about them:

first, as i've long known, the promise of this tech is incredible. you guys have to realize if he can instantaneously 3D render something like "the hand", um yeah...forget about it. that's not out there AT ALL to the best of my knowledge. the possible applications are huge. we didn't get to see the other prototype which is too bad but understandable. still i have to say, if his claim is true that is really impressive. at this point, with the level of communication he puts out there, i don't really see any good reason to distrust him.

second, regarding all of this chit chat about the size of the space, number of people, etc. do you guys have any experience with development stage corporations? i do, in a round about way. suffice it to say i have a close family member who has worked diligently in a string of small dev stage biotechs for years. i've visited each one so far. they all pretty much looked like what i saw today. warehouse setup with admin and pretty becky :) up front, sleepy looking techies with equipment out back. each time i visited the bro, i'd look around and worry about my sis.

that was until a month or two ago when his latest co's parent company (which rhymes with "byron-hood") ipo came out at around $14 i believe. it was the sleepy tech guys in the back that allowed that to happen. seriously, these guys with about 10 feet of bench space and a few decent pieces of equipment came out and published more than once in Science and other biggies. i don't think anyone is worred about how pretty their labs are now.(before anyone hammers me, yes i know you can't compare that co with this one. i'm simply making a point about judging based on appearances alone.)

i also know there are unanswered questions about financing, the fda, etc., etc. there ALWAYS are in these plays. i've planned how i'm gonna play this and i realize this may or may not be the same as anyone else. i just hope investors try to make rational decsions based on DD and their appropriate level of risk and not get suckered in by, "well, the floor space looks small" or "the walls are too green" type hooey.

sc