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.
Today's question: What's 1% of Nothing?
Yes, as I said no USA ERC patent
There is no Mantra ERC patent - fact.
Yes but no USA ERC patent.
And the USA ERC application is years old - meaning if it is ever accepted it will expire soon after.
Time is money.
But mostly, no protection in USA, still the market you want to be in.
Wow, check Oloman in the USA patent search. ERC only as an application
Also, look at Mantra's web site. They too list the ERC patent in countries other than USA.
Mantra has no USA ERC patent only an application.
Count the years, it's not looking good for Mantra.
And that is one BIG reason why there is no further investment.
Mantra has acquired a USA APPLICATION for ERC rights.
And the application has time limits.
And time is money or in this case potential patent value.
It is an important distinction.
Yeah, I'd like you to win this bet.
I've been wrong my share of times already.
Just don't see it happening.
MVTG Investors? ZERO shares traded today.
And they only cost a penny a piece.
Sure sign of investor interest.
No, actually it is not.
You don't apply for a grant with a company in default.
You don't get a grant thru "collaborative partner" when you are a company in default (inactive).
Grant opportunities from the USA are definitely not available to them.
Besides, nothing has changed for Mantra. The paperwork was more of a ruse to induce retail investors - like the offices (PO Boxes) in various countries. Non have resulted in a business deal.
Rinse - wash -repeat or some such nonsense.
See Eiddle #55127
A prior brief sojourn to the shores of the US of A.
So, so how could "grants be applied for..."?
multiple sclerosis
What other place? Reference one publication that cites SPARK at "other places".
Go ahead.
Tell us.
Patent Class Beginner level - Citation not same as AUTHOR.
Colin's work's (not USA patented) public info.
Colin never could get the USA patent (perhaps why Mantra collapsed?).
Alstom/GE worked around the problem.
GE not associated with Mantra by this Patent application.
Sad.
So what
so, Mantra?
It's the Mantra way......
Project went as far as a note on a napkin.
And sure GE was the "prospective partner" no wait, it was GE AND the Russian Republic wait no it was GE, the Russian Republic and China, wait, wait, no it was GE and the Russian Republic, China and Amazon!
That's it. When you squint your eyes and look closely enough it's obvious!
Says it all:
"VANCOUVER, BC / ACCESSWIRE / October 28, 2015 / Mantra Energy Alternatives, a subsidiary of Mantra Venture Group Ltd. (MVTG), has announced that it has launched an exploratory project in collaboration with a prospective technology development partner.
10 months and no press release? No follow-up, again.
Mystery project + mystery partner = mystery results.
Try this, as posted previously:
tdtcal Friday, 08/05/16 11:01:34 AM
Re: eiddle post# 53908
Post # of 54091
Perhaps:
"With the execution of the “Purchase Agreement” MVTG agreed to issue LOANING SERVICE (LC) "X" newly issued shares for free. LC can now use these free shares in their account as a “float” to sell shares in the market in advance of the shares they will purchase later at a discounted price(the lowest quoted price of the day), effectively engaging in a transaction akin to shorting the shares they will cover via purchase later, while on paper it can be claimed that LC is transacting from a long position.
One can imagine a scenario like this, LC starts the day with the full balance of the "X" free shares, during that day they sell in the open market at various price points X0,000 shares, end with a balance of "X" shares; at the end of the day they go to MVTG that issue them X,000 new shares at the lowest quoted price of the day and the balance is replenished to "X" shares, LC can now repeat the same transaction the next day, effectively shorting the stock with the appearance of being a long seller.
Using the same scenario example, that same day MVTG stock fluctuates between $10 and $11 and LC manages to sell the X0,000 shares in the open market at an average price of $, at the end of the day they purchase X0,000 shares directly from MVTG at $ the lowest price of the day, pocketing $X.50 per share, a $X,000 completely risk-free profit and delivering $X00,000 of fresh cash extracted from the marketplace to MVTG bank account, basically, in this example, a X% commission to transfer funds from retail investors to MVTG.
One should consider......
Good to know - thank you!
upcoming events schedule? or where to find it?
or nothing until next quarterly report (just kidding)
thanks
Actually, GE has no obligation to further funding per the Alstom-Mantra contract.
Any other considerations are at best, moot.
Credible? No submissions reported by any responsible party.
Yes, just product development - not so much.....
Perhaps:
"With the execution of the “Purchase Agreement” MVTG agreed to issue LOANING SERVICE (LC) "X" newly issued shares for free. LC can now use these free shares in their account as a “float” to sell shares in the market in advance of the shares they will purchase later at a discounted price(the lowest quoted price of the day), effectively engaging in a transaction akin to shorting the shares they will cover via purchase later, while on paper it can be claimed that LC is transacting from a long position.
One can imagine a scenario like this, LC starts the day with the full balance of the "X" free shares, during that day they sell in the open market at various price points X0,000 shares, end with a balance of "X" shares; at the end of the day they go to MVTG that issue them X,000 new shares at the lowest quoted price of the day and the balance is replenished to "X" shares, LC can now repeat the same transaction the next day, effectively shorting the stock with the appearance of being a long seller.
Using the same scenario example, that same day MVTG stock fluctuates between $10 and $11 and LC manages to sell the X0,000 shares in the open market at an average price of $, at the end of the day they purchase X0,000 shares directly from MVTG at $ the lowest price of the day, pocketing $X.50 per share, a $X,000 completely risk-free profit and delivering $X00,000 of fresh cash extracted from the marketplace to MVTG bank account, basically, in this example, a X% commission to transfer funds from retail investors to MVTG.
One should consider......
In my opinion, while often characterized as a “long time investor” by the company in its PR announcements, Lincoln Park Capital is not an “investor” but acting as an intermediary between Anavex Life Sciences and retail investors, allowing for the sale to the marketplace of newly issued shares and the pass through transfer of cash directly from retail investors in the marketplace to Anavex Life Sciences bank account, for this service LPC is remunerated via the discount offered on the share purchases and the issuance of free shares.
No one thinks the shares are worth the ask.
Too bad.
And in support of the positive trend we've all been enjoying, as of 3:53 pm
ZERO shares traded
Definitely a hot stock.....
At this point all Mantra has are post office box addresses and Larry's kitchen table.
No worries, that's all Larry really needs.
Nice summary.
Impediment mine most assuredly. Appreciate your patience.
Now about reasonable. There was a new antibiotic "chemical" that was discovered a few years ago. Never in clinical trials but as it was a potential new "family" of antibiotic was sold for about 1 billion to the pharmaceutical chemist and his group.
As 100 million is usually paid out in tranches, the risk is lowered considerably (and so is the dollar amount) particularly when as each test milestone is met additional investors pile on. Conversely if a milestone isn't met, the payments stop.
Governments are large payers for drugs. They dread diseases that chronically incapacitate people. They will be more agreeable to subsidize a drug that stabilizes a person and keeps them out of nursing homes - which they subsidize as well.
Probably why there have been so many Phase 3 trials at all.
Again, the original point was about lumping 2-73 in with other test drugs and then citing statistics that don't apply.
In your case (again, congratulations on your wins!) you are describing a statistical situation/model that is different than what I was referring to. So, being correct - and you are (I believe) is ok but not applicable to the original situation.
For 2-73, a different drug than previous test drugs, it is more like watching 10 roulette tables, having 9 roll red and then going to an 11th table and expecting your odds (except in your case, of course!) to be better than 50/50 red/black.
I will of course try your technique when in that situation - thanks!
Ha! Ha! Congratulations!
Maybe the 50/50 thing is just for statistics tests.....
No worries, was discussing a different topic actually.
Specifically, the part about saying an unproven drug (2-73 I presume) that: has a historical failure rate of 90%'s.
How can a drug that has never been in phase 3 have a historical failure rate?
Didn't you mean other Alzheimer test drugs have previously had a historical failure rate of 90%'s?
Didn't think it was correct to lump 2-73 in with other test drugs that had failed (90% of the time in phase 3).
Be careful: comparing apples with oranges is not statistically appropriate -
"an unproven drug that has a historical failure rate in phase 3 trials of the high 90%'s?"
You mean drugs for AZ's, correct? 2-73 is only at Phase 2, yes?
In any case, you can flip a coin 3 times and get tails each time, but is the statistical chance greater that the 4th toss will be heads? No. It is still 50/50.
Probabilities for different drugs are independent.
If there a drugs similar to Avarex's then there may be some relevance, otherwise none.
Just a thought.
Important point - and what are the SOC's sales? Worth replacing?
Another technician. Great.
Line #1 - you couldn't be more wrong.
Line #2 - you contradict your own previous post's conclusion.
Line #3 - see #4
Line #4 - you ignore the fact that there were 3 goals met and lack the statistics to qualify your claims
Line #5 - silly
Line #6 - you really are a pompous technician
Line #7 - ok.
Really? 3 out of 6 positive responses for any potential drug with a good safety profile and limited side effects is actually a rarity.
One positive response with good safety and limited side effects is a great find. And with a suitable market, a blockbuster.
Most prospective drug candidates don't make it out of the labs.