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.
The latest filing by provista totally proves there is no conteplated merger being planned with Radient. Also, Reese has no previous connection with Radient at all. That was all Gartner and in fact Reese dumped LC Sentinel.
All DC and Woofie can hope for now is Charter and Brown. Good luck with those two.
DC, I also put the screen shot on the "sticky post" so it will be at the top of the message list.
DC and Woofie, there is no way you can realistically claim the facebook screen shot was faked. The comment from Joe Adams was indeed posted on the GDCX facebook page and it said 2:10 for the time. When I checked the GCDX page at about 8:00 PHX time, the comment had been removed, no notification or anything at all. I was disappointed that Gartner had not answered but understood that Gartner would not want something like that on the GCDX facebook page.
Then about 9:30 PHX time, I once again checked the GCDX facebook page and the Joe Adams comment was still removed but this time, there was a notification posted on the Joe Adams page. I clicked on the notification and the comment with Gartners respose was there but with a slight difference. The comment time was listed as 3:10 with a response from Global Cancer Diagnostics of 31 minutes ago. That would have been about 9:00 PHX time. I took a screen shot and posted it on IHUB.
The comment and response from Gartner is still available on the Joe Adams facebook page. I just checked and it now indicates the response was made 16 hrs ago. Would you like another screen shot? I don't think so but I will post another if you like.
From that response, we all now know for certain that GCDX is in no way associated with Radient. We also know that GCDX is not in any way associated with Provistadx.
Your merger theory has totally exploded. We all knew it was bogus when it was dreamed up. Now, we just know straight from Gartner that it was all just lies.
DC, Woofie realizes that the merger rumor is now history.
Living posted the best response... Checkmate. Gartner totally denies any merger with Radient and at the same time, he denied any connection between GCDX and Provistadx.
Woofie, Gartners reply was never posted on the GCDX public facebook page. It appeared on the Joe Adams facebook page as a message response from GCDX.
A false rumor merger is certainly not something Gartner would want to remain posted on the GCDX facebook page. I can see why he took them down but he did in fact respond privately as I have posted. From the time stamp on the response, it was made this morning at around 9 AM Phoenix time.
This totally blows away any basis of a rumor of a merger. It now looks as if everything is now up to the Aussies who are in control of the private, non trading remains of Radient.
Woofie, yep, I asked the question on facebook and Gartner answered it. I took a screen shot of the facebook page and posted it to IHUB images. It is impossible to fake a screenshot of facebook. Yes, when I took that screenshot this morning, it was 31 minutes after Gartner posted it on facebook
William Gartner of GCDx denies any connection to RXPC.
This is the second time William Gartner has denied any connection with Radient. He also denies any connection with Provistadx.
Dear Mr. Gartner,
I am intrigued by your recent press release about offering a new Lung Cancer Test.
How do you get your financing? Is there an opportunity for a private investor like me to invest, and if so, how would I accomplish that?
In researching GCDx, I am finding several rumors on the internet (particularly on InvestorsHub.com) that your company is merging with, or taking over, Radient Pharmaceuticals and/or Provista Diagnostics. Is there any truth to that rumor? What is your current business relationship with Radient Pharmaceuticals and Provista Diagnostics? Do you own RXPC stock?
I am concerned that Radient might be carrying a lot of debt -- if you are involved with taking over or merging with Radient, what kind of debt responsibilities are you incurring, and if I invest in your company, how would I know that my money is not going towards paying off Radient's debt?
Finally -- do you have any patents or patent applications for The Lung Cancer Test for Early Detection?
Thank you for your time,
AND HERE IS HIS REPLY:
Good morning,
Before I answer all of your questions, I need to know more about you, especially whether or not you are a qualified investor under Rule 144. I will say this to clear up that very old rumor. We have no connection whatsoever with Radient Pharmaceutical in any way – company-wise or personally.
Do you represent a firm or is this personal? We must be very careful to comply with all of the regulations.
Regards,
William Gartner
President and CEO
Global Cancer Diagnostics Inc.
2343 W. University Dr.
Suite 105
Tempe, Arizona 85281 USA
602-908-9604 Office
602-300-4901 Cell
Global Cancer Diagnostics, Inc.
Yesterday at 2:10am ·
.
I read that global cancer diagnostics has some sort of merger deal with Radient Pharmaceuticals. Is this going to expand your operation and availablity of the lung cancer test or is this not true?
Also, is the lung cancer test associated with Provistadx?
Like · · Share
Response from GCDX:
Global Cancer Diagnostics, Inc. Thank you for your interest in GCDx. GCDx has no affiliations or discussions with either company. Thank you for bringing these rumors to our attention so that it can be stated that they have no basis and are only rumors,
Like · Reply · 26 mins
DC and Woofie, you are going to have to come up with some other scenario to "save" your Radient loss.
WG has denied any current association with Radient and he has absolutely no assets at all in GCDX. He has not even been able to raise any additional funding.
As for Reese, if he was in any way currently involved or done any planning for a merger with Radient, he could go to jail or at a minimum, have his butt sued off by provista investors.
New scenario please. It is the only way to keep this board alive.
I see that Provista has their new website up and running sans anything to do with Radient or a fibrin test.
Too bad for those hanging on to dreams of Provista recovering their staggering loss for investors in Radient.
BTW, Videssa is a combination of 5 biomarkers for all the indications they list. A customized software program is used for each biomarker for Breast, Ovarian, etc.
None of the 5 biomarkers used for the test have anything to do with Radient or Fibrin. If you don't know the 5 biomarkers, then you haven't done any DD.
Woofie stated: "Radient still had outstanding shares...That is why the shares were sold and bought up to the day of revocation...491 million shares were never released out of the 5 billion shares authorized.."
That is not true.
The Radient employee compensation plan required that 10% of all newly authorized shares were to be reserved in the plan. That is why the lenders would not be issued more than 4.5 billion of the 5 billion authorized.
Now, the question remains of where those extra 1/2 billion shares went. It is a fact that not only employees can be issued those shares but they can also be used to pay for consultants and for services as long as the service is not selling shares.
So Lawyers qualify to be paid from the employees compensation plan and that is exactly where the shares went. If you look at the trading history, about the time of the class action settlement, there was a HUGE trading day of over a half billion shares. That's when the lawyers sold their newly issued shares.
Woofie, I never stated that email was from me. You just made that assumption.
LC sentinel was just a DR70 test and since Provista dumped it, it is not the GCDX test. It is the generic test identical to DR70, nothing more.
Gartner certainly is not going to save you from your loss on Radient. He cannot even raise money for his own test.
A loss is a loss and just face the fact.
If anyone does not take the IRS loss on Radient after the deregistration in 2014, they are just financially beyond hope.
That was not my letter. It was from LS but it does not matter who sent the letter. It is the answer that matters. Gartner is in no way connected with Radient.
As for Radient, the Aussies have taken what they wanted and disappeared.
You seem to be persistent so I would expect you to still be posting about the resurrection of Radient years from now. Good luck.
As for Radient, AMDL diagnostics and NuVax, they are dead and nothing is going to bring them back. It takes MONEY to bring them back and they have no way of raising money. They have no IP, nothing worth anything.
The FDA will not shut GCDX down until he has some actual sales. That is just the way the FDA currently works.
Provista attempted to sell their BT test back in 2008 and was selling it via CLIA labs. The FDA shut them down. Currently, the BT test is selling in the UK and Ireland. Reese claims he will have the necessary clinical data to submit a 510k this year. Reese will definitely have a problem if their patent application is not approved.
Lets discuss IP for a bit.
Most investors want IP before they invest in a technology. Gartner doesn't have any IP. He is attempting to claim "trade secrets" as IP. If he had a patent application, he would be stating that so he does not have any patent IP.
The likelihood of Gartner obtaining investment money is the same probability of idiots having money to invest. The money is there but he just has to find the dumbest of the dumbest.
What about Radient? What IP do they have left.
DR70 is gone.
They have CIT and the humanized mouse both of which were written off as having no value by Radient. Radient has nothing left.
What about Provista?
Provista has an application on their BT test. The latest was filed in 2013 and there has been no detailed examination yet.
They have made two prior attempts to patent the BT test and both have received final rejection and have been abandoned. The first attempt was in 2006 and the second was in 2010.
The odds of the latest application being rejected in HIGH.
"Global Cancer Diagnostics (GCDx) has strong proprietary technology for the necessary biomarkers used for the test. The Company will protect that intellectual property as a trade secret."
What a joke. WG is attempting to persuade potential investors that GCDX has some sort of IP and calls it a "trade secret".
Hmmm, Let's see. UNI has the secret. The latest company in Taiwan manufacturing DR70 also has the "secret".
Apparently, it really isn't much of a secret.
t
BUSINESS
AMDL Rejoins Listed Stocks on the OTC
AMDL Inc., a Tustin developer of diagnostic tests for cancer and other diseases, said Monday its shares have been relisted on the over-the-counter market under the symbol AMDD. The shares were delisted Aug. 3 until the company filed required documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The stock closed Monday at $5, up 38 cents a share, in trading of 400 shares. The shares closed at $2.50 on Aug. 3.
http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/amdl-inc
Just like the old days.
DC stated: "Question: Why would he announce the start of a final validation study, only to pull it."
That question is laughable. Studies take MONEY and Gartner could not raise any. That's why there was NO study.
All of the assertions that Radient still has control of DR70 is just idiotic.
Lipitor went off patent in 2011. How many idiots think Pfizer is still controlling sales of generic Lipitor?
It is totally ludicrous to think Radient is in any way currently associated with UNI or anyone else attempting to sell DR70.
DR70 is "off patent" and that is what happens when a product goes off patent. There have been sales in SE Asia for several years but it was never enough to generate a profit for Radient. For a company in SE Asia with much less overhead than Radient, manufacture and sales might be profitable.
When UNI pharma licensed Onko Sure in 2013, they were given the right to sublicense the manufacture and sales of Onko sure. They apparently did so.
We now know that several companies have the know how to manufacture DR70.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000121390013003193/f8k061113a1ex10i_radient.htm
DC stated: "It always surprised me when Adam assumed that India was not expanding the usage of Onko-Sure, simply because his investigative skills were not up to the task"
Mac always referred to the "government program" that was run by Gaur Diagno. The fact is that there really was not any government program. It was in fact a "proposed government program" that was never in any way approved by the Indian government.
Long before Adam ever exposed the Indian operation as a scam, I met with another poster from this board. He was absolutely shocked when I explained to him there was not any government program. He was a friend of Garza and Garza is the one who was proclaiming that the government program was a fact.
About "The first mark"
I called the number listed on the website Woofie posted. First of all, I was told the First Mark is no longer part of Genway.
Genway does not use DR70 in any way.
That is really an old website.
http://www.thefirstmark.com/products/oncology/oncology-physicians-3/#
Call the number listed for yourself.
Actually, the Metropolis thing is a pretty serious blow to the takeover proponents. It clearly shows that anyone can sell DR70 including WG and pay Radient nothing. It is OFF PATENT.
The onko sure FDA label used to be on several websites but I can no longer find it. It gave the ELISA procedures, wash, and also gave the shelf life of 2 years. The shelf life certainly does not prevent anyone from using old tests somewhere in Asia. As for the cost, the kits are 96 well and about 12 are used for calibration leaving 44 for use. Two wells were always used to verify results but since the test is not really that meaningful, they could just be using one and sell 44 tests.
Radient sold the kits for $400 each so that would be less than $10 per test using two wells. $5 if only one well is used. IMO, in Asia, they could still make money selling the test for $40. For Metropolis, they had one sale in Jan and then had another sale in late Feb so the test is not selling like hotcakes. If they have another sale in Mar/Apr, then expect them to cease attempting to sell the test.
Living, UNI does in fact call the test Onko Sure and that is the same term used by Metropolis. I have swung back to your camp. I agree that UNI is the probable source of the tests by Metropolis.
If you happen to notice, Metropolis has just recently added the test to their list. SRL has dropped the test from their list. I now agree that these tests are probably from left over inventory from Bhatia. Bhatia actually bought $50,000 in test kits from Radient so that is about 10,000 actual individual tests if they do not run dual test validation. I doubt that SRL ever sold that number of tests.
These are most likely old tests.
"Cancer 8 is now being offered by Metropolis at a special price of INR 2,500. (Valid from 8th Jan to 18th Jan 2015 ONLY) - See more at: http://www.metropolisindia.com/patients/cancer-eight#sthash.EVPIDhQx.dpuf"
"The test [Cancer 8] is being offered in Mumbai at a special price of INR 2500. Valid from 7th Feb - 8th March 2015."
It looks like the "sales effort" continues. Are no fish biting?
Brown and Charter have never run any kind of business with AMDL Australia. No sales were ever reported to Radient.
IMO, Charter was only interested in his spit test and it never got off the ground from lack of investor money. The biggest problem with Charter or Brown running a company is their history of being convicted felons.
My guess would be that Brown and Charter did not pay the required corporate fees.
Commonwealth Consolidated Acts
[Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Act] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601AB
Deregistration--ASIC initiated
Circumstances in which ASIC may deregister
(1) ASIC may decide to deregister a company if:
(a) the response to a return of particulars given to the company is at least 6 months late; and
(b) the company has not lodged any other documents under this Act in the last 18 months; and
(c) ASIC has no reason to believe that the company is carrying on business.
(1A) ASIC may also decide to deregister a company if the company's review fee in respect of a review date has not been paid in full at least 12 months after the due date for payment.
(2) ASIC may also decide to deregister a company if the company is being wound up and ASIC has reason to believe that:
(a) the liquidator is no longer acting; or
(b) the company's affairs have been fully wound up and a return that the liquidator should have lodged is at least 6 months late; or
(c) the company's affairs have been fully wound up under Part 5.4 and the company has no property or not enough property to cover the costs of obtaining a Court order for the company's deregistration.
Deregistration procedure
(3) If ASIC decides to deregister a company under this section, it must:
(a) give notice of the proposed deregistration:
(i) to the company; and
(ii) to the company's liquidator (if any); and
(iii) to the company's directors; and
(iv) on ASIC database; and
(b) publish notice of the proposed deregistration in the prescribed manner.
(3A) When 2 months have passed since the publication of the notice under paragraph (3)(b), ASIC may deregister the company.
(4) ASIC does not have to give a person notice under paragraph (3)(a) if ASIC does not have the necessary information about the person's identity or address.
(5) ASIC must give notice of the deregistration to everyone who was notified of the proposed deregistration under subparagraph (3)(a)(ii) or (iii).
(6) ASIC may refuse to deregister a company under this section if ASIC decides to order under section 489EA that the company be wound up.
(7) Subsection (6) does not limit ASIC's power to refuse to deregister the company.
DC stated: "Why all this mis-direction with the Aussies? Can anyone name One Actual Thing they have done since supposedly taking over."
You can logically assume the Aussies got what the intended to get when they took over. Once they got what they wanted, nothing more was done.
It is just an ignorant assumption to think the Aussies are part of some elaborate "take over" group.
Jim Tash stated: "India is a huge market and there's no sense in allowing others to manufacture."
You don't seem to understand. It is not a matter of "allowing" anyone. DR70 is off patent and anyone can manufacture or sell it.
I would probably guess UNI or the Chinese were the source of the test kits.
All of the international patents for DR70 have now expired. The patent applications in each country have also been declared rejected from either non payment of fees or lack of response.