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.
.19 for .97 - That's a helluva deal!
Way to man up and own your views. GLTA
I think the move from .16 to $1 will be amazingly quick and irreversible. When you see some of the MCs on much less critical companies, you can appreciate what TAGB is saying . . . Science is solid, just a timing issue now.
Reminds me of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Something is impossible until it is not . . . and it won't work until it does.
There is very little the Chinese could say that I would believe, and that small amount shrinks nearly daily . . .
Talk about "new normal" - online education may become the new normal for many schools and students. This is where they fit in . . . not sure what all they are up to, but that is the space.
Pandemics and online education. . .
In March they were touting paying off converts to reduce dilution . . .
Change of heart . . . again?
The Wise Ones say "volume precedes price movement," well . . .
The volume is building, so we'd expect price to follow.
Pandemics (there will be more - now 'they' know it works) and education are the key ideas joined here.
Why are the MM interested in keeping it below $1?
It's not like the volume was stellar prior to sub-penny land back in March 2020.
Micro Float? LOL
Went from 10M or so to . . . what now . . . 250M o/s?
I have seen nothing that indicates that the two tests are methodologically different.
Therefore, it seems that testing for one kit should be applicable to the other.
Further, given the novelty of the test, I am pleased to see extended testing going on. The more the method is tested, the more solid the results will be.
Moreover, infectious diseases are not going away. They are now widely known to be a very effective tool at destabilizing entire countries. The future is very bright (in a dark way) for the ID testing industry.
Spelling it out plainly . . .
He had never said otherwise . . . yet, there it is in black-n-white.
Why, he even correctly defines the process as "authorization" and not approval.
Or, if some of his commentators are accurate,
and Berman never tells the truth, this is just more smoke and mirrors to deceive the untouchables . . . Could he be making the marks?
You're most welcome.
Sometimes
The
BS
Just
Gets
TOO
Thick
it's only function is to validate the SEC's rationale for suspending trading in DECN
And if it was produced, and validated back in March why the EUA delay?
Why do we not have a cheap (or free) and widely available cure for all types of cancers?
SEC vs. DECN
1. Senior Counsel submits report in compliance with request for “all information” SEC had before it on April 23, 2020 when it suspended trading in DECN stock.
2. Opening salvo is a rhetorical device designed to discredit Keith Berman: “. . . was fired amid reports of unexpected losses” . . . “described as ‘cavalier about everything’” and “Allegations . . . included misleading information . . . as well as false press releases.” Was Berman guilty of anything, personally? The Senior Counsel leaves it to you to assume.
3. In item 12, The Senior Counsel again uses rhetoric to incline the reader, noting that Berman issued several press releases in January and February 2020 (normal business practices) “and just weeks later issued a press release” regarding the COVID test kit” (italics mine). Since when does the timing of a PR constitute improper activity?
4. In item 12, The Senior Counsel writes a very misleading statement: “Between March 3, 2020 and April 7, 2020, DECN issued eleven press releases claiming to have ‘technology perfected’ to allow it to manufacture and sell a “revolutionary” COVID-19 test kit that would provide results “in 15 seconds based on a small finger prick blood sample.” This is completely untrue. In only 3 of those press releases was ‘perfected technology’ even mentioned. I have repeatedly documented this elsewhere.
5. Item 14 includes this: “ . . . DECN began to issue a series of apparently false and misleading press releases . . .” (italics mine) - uh, Senior Counsel, if you thought they were only apparently false and misleading, why did the SEC suspend the company?
6. The information contained in #14 is what Berman wrote in PRs. Again, another rhetorical device: The Senior Counsel wants you to believe Berman is guilty by association – by placing the information that he labelled “apparently misleading” next to the label “apparently misleading” he wants you to assume it is . . . . well, misleading, which is of course The Senior Counsel being . . misleading.
7. On March 11, Berman wrote that he “anticipated the sale of 420,000,000 kits in the first full year of commercial sale.” The Senior Counsel noted that Berman stated that DECN “expected to sell 420 million, beginning September 2020.” Then the Senior Counsel states that DECN’s forecast was based on “this apparently baseless forecast chart” (italics mine). Again, why is it not clear to The Senior Counsel?
8. In #16, Bad Boy Berman failed to provide supporting evidence for a claim, and he is charged with making his COVID test kit look too much like the glucose test kit!
9. #17 – restating Berman’s PRs – again . . . guilty by association
10. #20: Perhaps most laughable of all: “stated or suggested in interviews with [SEC] staff” - by now, if you have read all of the PRs, you know that Berman would never have stated or suggested that he “had no idea how many test kits DECN could produce.” The other points are highly likely and mean absolutely nothing
a. “Company had no COVID-19 test kits” – He never said they did!
b. “had not seen any of DECN’s prototype COVID-19 test kits” – of course not, they were in development
c. “knew that the COVID-19 test kits would require component parts . . . “ Yep, anyone with a little bit of sense knows you need part before you can built something.
d. “was looking for sources . . . “ good for him!
e. “. . . no COVID-19 test kits could be sold without FDA approval” [incorrect – approval is not needed, only EUA]. – of course he knew this – it is stated all throughout the PRs.
11. In #22-23, what Bermans stated was true, and it appears The Senior Counsel is really stretching to pin something on Berman here: the material in #23 reveals either sublime stupidity or a loooong stretch . . . BERMAN NEVER SAID THE PRE-EUA WAS “APPROVAL.”
12. #24 – “. . . statements on the website give the misleading impression . . .” – misleading impression to whom? The Senior Counsel? Is he a shareholder?
13. #28 – a spike in share price of a few cents raises “concerns that the market misunderstood the news to believe it to mean that a device had been approved by the FDA” – People who were following DECN and the FDA and the COVID crisis knew better AND they represented, no doubt, the largest percentage of shares. IF the market had believed a device had been “approved by the FDA” – the price would not have stopped at .29, and the Senior Counsel would have known this to be true by observing the stock price action on later days when it was abundantly obvious that no device had been “approved.”
14. It seems The Senior Counsel created his own rhetorical device to attempt to convince readers that Berman had intentionally misled people for some unstated reason – yet all of this is only “apparently” true of DECN – even The Senior Counsel is not sure.
This SEC "defense" reveals a very clear "hit" on DECN or . . .
One of the least intelligent investigators on record . . .
More in a bit. lolol! WOW!
Why Is This Still NOT Updated?
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/ap-3-19788.xml
Too many irons in the fire?
Too little interest?
Not gonna happen?
Waiting on more online posters to provide data?
Ivermectin Shows 'Astounding' Results Against Coronavirus
Here's hoping all you gals and guys have a great weekend!
Get out there and enjoy nature while remembering what we recognize this weekend . . . "some gave all."
We'll get back at this later. Got some smooth whiskey callin' my name! Cheers!
There is STILL no Verifiable evidence that DECN has a working SARS COV 2 test kit.
Gotta Love Berman's New Access Policy
1. We have data.
2. If you want to access it, we will have YOUR data.
3. Our data is better than your data.
4. "Uncle Keith, may I have the password, please . . ."
And here y'all were calling Berman "Bozo" lolol!
Who Shorted My Stock?
This current blog posting from Duke Law may shed some light on the subject.
Body cam footage can be requested via FOIA . . . and is usually delivered. Trust me on that one!
Pursuing tangential arguments will not help the logic. It is fundamentally and fatally flawed.
Already been over this ground. You're wrong.
re EUA activities are about the appropriate process to use TO SUBMIT THE DATA,
Berman submitted two PRE-EUA applications, which meant that he had already agreed to provide testing data to the FDA
It means no such thing!
Of Course It Does
Pre-EUA activities may include discussions with FDA about a potential EUA product. Such discussions may occur prior to the submission of a formal request for consideration of an EUA or issuance by the HHS Secretary of an EUA declaration. They may also include discussions about the appropriate vehicle to use (e.g., IND or IDE, Master File, pre-EUA submission) for submitting data on the product prior to submission of a formal request for consideration of an EUA.
New FDA Rule Has No Effect On DECN's pre-EUA request.
Berman submitted two PRE-EUA applications, which meant that he had already agreed to provide testing data to the FDA.
. . . Potent and Rapid Virucidal Activity . . .
I Know You All Know This, But . . .
The ONLY thing that matters is IF DECN has a diagnostic test for the COVID-19 virus that is based on Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy and can accurately reveal to the tester that s/he is or has been infected with the virus. DECN's press releases indicate that it has, in conversation with the FDA, been developing such a test and has submitted two different pre-EUA applications for such a test (one "PRO" version and one "at-home" version). Those tests are apparently undergoing final testing at the moment, and very soon, one way or the other, we will know if the tests work. The FDA has confirmed the existence of the first pre-EUA, so I do not doubt the existence of the second.
Time will tell. My money is on a successful kit based on technology that has been developed in as-yet-unappreciated ways under the radar, while the rest of the scientific community worked with older methods.
the sec didn't send them to the greys, finra did
Furthermore, when an SEC trading suspension ends, a broker-dealer generally may not solicit investors to buy or sell the previously-suspended over-the-counter (“OTC”) stock until certain requirements are met. Before soliciting quotations or resuming quotations in an OTC stock that has been subject to a trading suspension, a broker-dealer must file a Form 211 with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) representing that it has satisfied all applicable requirements, including those of Rule 15c2-11 and FINRA Rule 6432
Just doesn't seem like door # 2 is the sensible move
BP = Big Pharma
Let's Say They Have a Test That Works
Possible Outcomes:
1. BP throws everything at keeping it off the market including preventing authorization.
2. FDA grants authorization and BP makes an offer Berman cannot refuse.
3. FDA grants authorization and DECN tools up and starts making and selling test kits nationally, then expands to international.
Of these three, #2 seems most likely to me.
Antigen is whatever an antibody binds to
technical career in the diagnostics industry
Ah, is DECN the competition, then? Maybe they need to be shut down because of the damage a successful test would do to another diagnostics company?
Surely you can appreciate that in the world today we have the best science money can buy, right? If I ask the Hershey scientists if chocolate is good for me, you bet they'd produce evidence for that. If, on the other hand, I asked the American Diabetes Association if chocolate is good for me, you know they have mountains of evidence for their position as well. The two positions are probably not even close to the same.
Too many times what calls itself science cannot be replicated in other labs. For a little evidence on that, you might consider:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress
The ultimate Phase Four is the populace. Much as has been done with GMOs in edibles - we've been the guinea pigs for over twenty years now - all under the guise of "bio-identical." Is the Vacanti Mouse listening?