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.
FY 2021 10-Q3 is not due until 5/17 (3/30/21 + 45). so only 6, not 7 due.
Innova has tests for other diseases, not just Covid.
"Today's news was the final proof for me that they can and now did break into the 2 trillion dollar per year counterfeit problem market, and they are doing it in a huge super important one, the Counterfeit Rx drug and delivery market."
PopupRx Inc
3267 Bee Caves Rd, Austin, TX 78746
https://esos.nv.gov/EntitySearch/OnlineEntitySearch
PopupRx Inc Incorporated in Nevada 05/22/17. Current status: Default
https://mycpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/coaSearchBtn
PopupRx Texas Registration Date 10/21/2017 Status: Active
PopupCare Texas Registration Date 07/31/20 Status: Active
QMC HealthID Partners with PopupRx; Deploys HealthID Solution Within Pharmacies Across Texas
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210317005294/en/
The licensing agreement to allow PopupRx’s 20-plus pharmacies to deploy the QMC HealthID™ app, giving those locations access to secure COVID-19 testing and reporting.
About PopupRx
EverydayRx Is an Austin, Texas-based Pharmacy Experience Management Company focused on delivering uniquely crafted digital pharmacy experience solutions which enable pharmacies and their pharmacists to create safe and secure digital experiences which enhance how patients acquire prescriptions and receive pharmacy services at or beyond the traditional pharmacy counter to the home counter.
(EverydayRx is a DBA of PopupRx)
https://www.linkedin.com/company/popuprx/
3 employees
David Vinson, President
Greg Stecher, CFO
http://www.buzzfile.com/business/Popuprx,-Inc.-512-637-8686
Popuprx is located in Austin, Texas. This organization primarily operates in the Computer Software Development and Applications business / industry within the Business Services sector. This organization has been operating for approximately 4 years. Popuprx is estimated to generate $115,201 in annual revenues, and employs approximately 9 people at this single location.
https://www.builtinaustin.com/company/popuprx-inc
PopupRx is a pharmacy experience management company. PopupRx is focused on reducing the friction related to consumers securing prescriptions for acute care incidents.
https://www.popupcare.com/en
PopupCare™ is a Membership Coverage based Virtual Care Community offering a uniquely designed membership program called PharmacyCare™. Our PharmacyCare™ Experience Program provides FREE access to Virtual Healthcare Services including Urgent Care, Dermatology, Behavioral Counseling and Prescription Drugs when Unexpected Healthcare events arise.
https://www.popuporange.com/join-orange/
Our PopupOrange small box Telepharmacy Network is poised to drive new patient script acquisitions while reducing dispensing cost.
Our proprietary Smart OrangeBox is an Automated Prescription Drug Dispensing Kiosk which enables a contact free consumer facing pharmacy experience.
Yes Doderer was awarded the 300,000 options exercisable at $0.12, but that award was actually made in June 2017 and reported on this Form 4.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315217007215/xslF345X03/form4.xml
The Form 4 was just amended to show that over the last 3 1/2 years Doderer had over 8 million options expire worthless (Box 9 - 14.17 million dropped down to 6.05 million).
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221006165/xslF345X03/ownership.xml
I'm sure he is happy that after only 3 1/2 years that the share price has risen above his exercise price of those 300K options. Probably not happy about 8 million that disappeared.
The 59 million options don't count as part of the Outstanding shares, since they have not been exercised and can expire.
Shares do need to be reserved for the options and the options are part of the fully diluted shares that will determine how many shares Pasaca will get.
Squires reported about 26 million common shares directly held in Nov 2019.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315219017180/xslF345X03/ownership.xml
I'm guessing that PopUpRX got a very good deal from QMC and QMC's margins will be minimal.
David Vinson of PopUpRX was one of the investors that put up part of the $2 million in convertible notes that QMC got from QMVT in early 2020, along with Les Paull.
Per Paull's resignation letter on 2/4/21,
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221003266/ex99-1.htm
Vinson and the others wanted to cash out their convertible notes due to the Pascal deal.
Since Paull already had the PopupRX deal sitting on the table 6 weeks ago, I'd bet QMC needed to sweeten the deal to keep the pissed off Vinson from not signing.
So what?
BTW did you notice your Lockheed Martin press release with $900 million contract, also didn’t include “This press release contains "forward-looking statements" either.
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/lockheed-martin-receives-first-f-16-depot-sustainment-program
Yes they could have spelled every thing out and filed, but to me it would have a been a pretty ugly picture. Remember the QMC expect describing a death spiral? To me sleeping dogs.
As far as securities fraud, I don't see it as that, just what companies on the OTC Pink Sheets no information can currently get away with. With the current success of Innova Medical, I would expect that Pasaca would have looked at that with their in-house council.
Of course, time is running out for this type of behavior. The SEC trying to address it with new OTC quoting standards.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-212
More motivation for QMC to clean up its act by June.
When LM sells jets to the US Government, dollars are made public.
When LM announces license agreements involving computer software with non-government companies like NEC, they can leave out the dollar amounts.
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2021-03-01-Lockheed-Martin-and-NEC-Put-AI-to-Work-on-Programs-like-NASAs-Artemis-Mission
"What if the confidential exhibit had to do with pending effect of share structure by lawsuit, where the company could not provide an accurate share count to SEC until suit settled, and ten years given because lawsuits and counter suits could take that long?"
Because it didn't.
QMC simply attached an informational copy of the Amtronics CC Licensing Agreement to the 10-Q and redacted certain confidential commercial terms, like the royalty percentage.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315219002055/ex10-1.htm
In the CT Order the SEC said it was OK to keep those terms confidential.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/999999999719007115/filename1.pdf
"Funny how the CT was ordered (9/26/19) a day before the NT 10k (9/27/19 was filed, with began protection 2/19/2021 and no other financial filings occurred after 5/15/19 which covered the period ending March 31,2019.
Another coincidence?"
Yes, not only a coincidence but meaningless.
The CT Order in Sept was simply the SEC's acknowledgement of QMC's request to keep certain information in the attachment to the 10-Q filed in Feb. confidential. That order only covers that single document and did grant any "protection" beyond that date for any other documents.
My view is that the QTMM share structure is fluid until the Kansas case is decided. The last 10-Q filing acknowledged the lawsuits but did not reserve any shares for potential pay outs.
UK Firm Sensyne Health Inks $652K Deal to Pilot AI Technology With SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Tests
Mar 12, 2021 | staff reporter
Save for later
NEW YORK - Oxford, UK-based Sensyne Health on Friday said it has inked a £470,000 ($652,500) agreement with the UK Department of Health & Social Care to conduct the second stage of a pilot study that uses its MagnifEye system with COVID-19 lateral flow diagnostic tests.
The MagnifEye system is a software application available as a smartphone app and web application that uses a cloud-based deep-learning algorithm to automate the reading and analysis of different diagnostic test results including for lateral flow tests.
MagnifEye trains users to administer a lateral flow test and interpret the test result, and provides a digital certificate that validates the training, the test result, and the associated health status, enabling frequent testing for COVID-19 and a range of other conditions, Sensyne said.
The agreement with the Department of Health & Social Care follows an announcement in February that Sensyne had signed an exclusive license and development agreement with Excalibur Healthcare Services to apply MagnifEye for use with the Excalibur SARS COV-2 rapid antigen lateral flow test.
Excalibur said in a separate statement that the integration of Sensyne's AI algorithms enables it to quickly detect the presence of low viral loads of SARS-COV-2.
https://www.360dx.com/infectious-disease/uk-firm-sensyne-health-inks-652k-deal-pilot-ai-technology-sars-cov-2-lateral-flow?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=360DN%20Fri%202021-03-12&utm_term=360Dx%20Daily%20News#.YEuaH51KiUk
The PR was issued by LivePerson Inc and they appear to be the company that has the AI technology. LivePerson has partnered with Innova and with Citigroup.
"Has that always been there?"
For about 10 years.
https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/secg/interactivedata-secg.htm
"Two separate deals for the same product by two separate entities.
Pasaca - QMC
Tried and tested - QMC HealthID"
I think that claiming the Pasaca deal is "just" with QMC is over simplified since the agreement invokes QMC HID and Innova.
"While Pasaca is buying 51% of QMC"
Which also gets Pasaca 51% of QMC's wholly owned subsidiary QMC HealthID.
Just because I like round multiples, I'd say the Authorized Shares will go from 0.75B to 2.25B (3x) or 3.0B (4x). But 2.25 is a bit thin so your 2.5B probably better low end.
3.0B would give Pasaca the option to use the hopefully NASDAQ public market to raise capital for QMC instead of Pasaca's own funds.
BigE, just for clarity, the 1.8B share estimate is for fully diluted shares, not outstanding shares.
My guess is that O/S will be somewhere between 1.6B (0.7B+0.9B) and up to 1.8B shares for an increase in O/S of 2.3x to 2.6x. What is not clear is how many of the existing convertibles, warrants, options, etc could get exercised and go from reserved to outstanding.
All these new high level hires could also be looking for or promised more share/option bonuses putting more upward pressure on the share structure.
Fortunately I'm here to remind you of this query
Is that rollout like rolling out anti-C a year ago and rolling out HID app in July?
Rolling out breakthrough tech, what exactly does that mean? Show a prototype? start clinical trials? I will guess its not putting an approved saleable product out for sales.
"Minimum of $15M is only for QDH app correct."
No, the $15M includes sales of QDs and the app. QD sales could be from test kits and/or anti-C.
Update of the 3 Phases that I posted earlier:
Phase 1 was to issue the $4.5M senior note. The First Closing.
Phase 2 is for QMC to file the missing financial reports and to file the revised Articles of Incorp to increase the Authorized Shares.
Phase 3 is the Senior Note being converted into 154 million shares and for Pasaca to pay QMC the additional $10.5M for the Purchased Shares (about 770 million) that will give them 51% of the fully diluted common stock. The Second Closing.
Phase 4 is for QMC is regain OTCQB status.
Phase 5 is for QMC to file a Registration Statement with the SEC.
Phase 6 is for QMC to uplist to the NASDAQ.
The 6 Phases with some added discussion and references:
Phase 1 was to issue the $4.5M senior note. The First Closing.
I expect that this occurred on 1/26 or within a day or two. QMC needed the additional $1.5M in cash from the bridge loan.
I like that there a few grownups coming on board and I'm hopeful that they will bring focus to what can be accomplished in the next couple of months.
Future projects and expansion can wait in my book.
And Pasaca said they are not currently looking for outside capital and they have billions in revenue flowing into Innova. So I bet they could drop another $15 million on QMC pretty easily.
Is that rollout like rolling out anti-C a year ago and rolling out HID app in July?
Rolling out breakthrough tech, what exactly does that mean? Show a prototype? start clinical trials? I will guess its not putting an approved saleable product out for sales.
"Do you know how much a company ramping up operations might need to meet customer demands for supplies? Most startup companies can’t rely on profits alone to fund expansion."
I agree that QMC probably doesn't have net profits at this point to fund expansion.
But what exactly is QMC ramping up to deliver to customers and who are those customers?
At this point, I see Innova as the main customer for QD's and QD technical support for next gen tests. So QMC could start with the $10.5 million in capital from Pasaca to ramp up QD production. It would be in everyone's interest for Innova to keep the cash flowing back to QMC with little delay and Innova has the cash, right?
More than likely at this point Innova would also be QMC's biggest customer for the roll out of QD tagging and anti-counterfeiting, and the AC is mostly a software/internet/ledger solution, which has low capital demands once the R&D is finished. And that's been ready to roll for a while, right?
Then there is the HealthID app for Covid, which again is software/internet and costs are front loaded in the development phase. That's already rolling, right?
There is more R&D to be done to broaden the scope of the app to other diseases but isn't Covid the big money maker now.
So ramp up QDs, anti-C and the Covid app into actual sales with the $10.5 and show the shareholders its viable company.
Looks like Squires number went up in 2019. Form 4s
25 million shares.
50 million options but that includes 25 million $0.12 options, the rest between $0.06 and $0.02.
Carson went up to 36 million.
Still around 20%.
"but won't Squire and pals own nearly 50% of that 49%?"
Looks like about 165 million shares or about 20% of 900 million.
I think Squire's number went down and Carson's went up.
From the 10-K:
Makes sense to have Dr Malan part of Innova Medical since they are the real medical testing device company.
Being the SVP of Clinic Research at QMC HealthID, which is really a software company, he can add direction and value to the application but to bring a next generation QD test to market is better handled by Innova. QMC will provide technical support in researching the proper QDs and then manufacture the QDs, but they don't really have the overall medical test device expertise like Innova.
I assume Dr Malan will maintain both positions, but expect his focus will be at Innova.
I will point out that the $15M minimum is just for sales to and by Pasaca in accordance with the agreement.
QMC can bring their "own" revenues by other sales to others. Of course half of those sales would be for the "benefit" of Pasaca as the 51% owner.
"If QMC fails to develop a functional product that works with the Innova products does Pasaca Capital still purchase 51% of QMC?"
I think the Second Closing (obtaining 51%) should occur by the end of March or maybe April, so that would be a done deal. So if QMC fails to deliver the integrated product after that, then the one-year clock on minimum guaranteed revenues never starts and Pasaca isn't on the hook for that. I don't see anything that shows that that failure would end the overall deal, just that QMC would lose the potential of added benefit of the guarantee being implemented. But if sales are strong for the existing products/QDs, then QMC does ok. If QMC delivers the integrated products, then more things to sell and potentially bigger revenues.
"Innova already has a distribution agreement in place with QMC, going forward should we treat Pasaca agreement separate from the Innova agreement, a replacement or the Innova agreement, or an add on to the Innova agreement?"
Since we never saw the details of the QMC/Innova agreement, just the PR, it is hard to say.
http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/08/12/2077212/0/en/QDX-HealthID-Signs-Distribution-Agreement-with-Innova-Medical-Group-Inc-Adding-Antigen-Molecular-and-Antibody-Tests-to-its-COVID-19-Test-Ecosystem.html
To me the main focus of the distribution agreement with Innova was QMC including the Innova tests in the app/ecosystem, which would be a sales outlet/path for Innova. QMC sets up a deal with a business to use their app while testing their employees/customers and QMC recommends the Innova test that are already included in the app and Innova then gets the test kit sales, based on QMC's legwork. QMC gets a cut.
Thanks for posting the link to the Biotime PR, I've been looking for that since my previous link to it stopped working.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/secure/post_reply.aspx?message_id=162203858
Interesting that the PR only discusses the exclusive rights to the antigen tests and not the Biotime antibody or PCR tests. But Pasaca definitely picked the right one.
Like you said, 10 million units currently is a big number but I don't think we can really nail it down since it is constantly changing and quoted numbers/forecasts have qualifiers.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 50 million/day in spring 2021 should have been 50 million/day in spring 2022 considering that the US production has just been getting off the ground in newly purchased facilities. So a change to 50 million/day by end of 2021 could be an improved forecast and could pull back more. JMO
"And Innova did forecast 5 million a day by the end of February but has delivered 10 million a day by that self inflicted deadline."
Innova said 5 million a day by end of Feb from CA. Add that to 5 million a day from China and you get the current 10 million a day.
Is that a manufacturing site or a lab site? Innova bought at least one lab that was performing/processing tests (PCR?) before the deal.
So could be expanding that testing and not rapid antigen testing.
https://www.360dx.com/clinical-lab-management/liverpool-study-suggests-role-covid-19-rapid-antigen-tests-also-indicates?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=360Dx%20POC%20Thurs%202021-02-25&utm_term=360Dx%20POCT%20Bulletin#.YDgYEmhKiUk
Liverpool Study Suggests Role for COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests, But Also Indicates Limitations
Feb 18, 2021 | Adam Bonislawski
NEW YORK – Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of researchers including prominent epidemiologists and economists have promoted population-wide rapid antigen testing as a means of controlling transmission of the virus.
A recently launched pilot project in the UK has returned data that sheds light on the effectiveness of such an approach and indicates that it may be more less impactful in practice than in theory.
In November, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that Liverpool, England would be running a COVID-19 testing pilot offering serial testing to all residents and workers, both symptomatic and asymptomatic. At the core of the plan was to use rapid lateral flow antigen assays from Pasadena, California-based test vendor Innova Medical Group.
At the end of December, researchers from the University of Liverpool published an interim report evaluating the project. This month, researchers, including one of the leaders of the Liverpool effort, published a commentary in the BMJ looking at the utility of rapid testing for managing COVID-19 (https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n208), including within the Liverpool effort.
Rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 tests are typically less sensitive than molecular tests, but they have the advantage of providing results in a matter of minutes as opposed to days. Proponents also argue that despite their lower sensitivity, these tests can nonetheless detect most individuals with high viral loads, which is when they are most likely to transmit the virus. Additionally, they note that the ability to use these tests serially — testing, for instance, every several days — mitigates against any sensitivity disadvantages. Essentially, advocates have argued that a testing regimen using assays that can be repeated frequently and return results quickly could dramatically reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission and prove much more effective than current testing approaches, which have been dominated by lab-based molecular assays.
To date, arguments for population-scale testing using rapid antigen tests have largely relied on modeling work indicating, for instance, that high-frequency, moderate-sensitivity testing is more effective at stopping virus transmission than low-frequency, high-sensitivity testing, and that frequent, routine testing may be effective in stopping COVID-19 outbreaks.
However, the ultimate effectiveness of any such screening program depends on difficult to predict factors like what percentage of the population makes use of the rapid testing and how users change or fail to change their behavior in response to results. This being the case, the Liverpool experience provides a useful look at how well real-world rapid antigen-based screening programs might work.
While Johnson said in his statements announcing the Liverpool pilot that the project would offer testing to all the city's residents and workers, this was deemed unfeasible. Instead, the project planners developed what they called their SMART (systematic, meaningful, asymptomatic, repeated testing) approach, which focused on using rapid-antigen tests in a more targeted manner to protect vulnerable individuals and settings, to enable quarantining individuals to exit quarantine more quickly, and to enable citizens to return to activities important to the city's social and economic life.
At the time of the December write-up, 25 percent of Liverpool's roughly 500,000 residents had been tested using lateral flow antigen tests, while 36 percent were tested using either lateral flow or molecular tests, with 897 individuals testing positive for COVID-19 via lateral flow and 2,902 positive individuals identified by PCR. As of Jan. 21, 359,606 lateral flow tests had been performed on 205,836 residents (41 percent of the Liverpool population) and had identified 4,421 positive individuals.
The Innova test demonstrated sensitivity of 40 percent, which was well below the 77 percent accuracy the test showed in validation studies collected by Public Health England and Oxford University in which trained staff performed the test. The test identified roughly two-thirds of individuals with high viral loads (as determined by a PCR cycle threshold of less than 25). Test specificity was 99.9 percent.
While the testing program identified several thousand COVID-19 positive individuals who might otherwise have gone undetected, there is little evidence from Liverpool COVID-19 infection or hospitalization trends that indicates the testing program reduced the spread of the virus, said Alex Crozier, a researcher in the division of biosciences at University College London, and an author on the BMJ commentary reviewing the pilot's results. Crozier was not formally involved in the Liverpool project, but he said he has been in regular discussion about the project with one of its leaders, Iain Buchan, chair of public health and clinical informatics at the University of Liverpool and a co-author with Crozier on the BMJ paper.
Crozier said that the Liverpool researcher compared the city's outcomes to those in nearby Manchester, which did not do a similar testing program, and found a small decrease in hospitalizations and deaths but not a statistically significant one. The Liverpool researchers noted in their interim report that asymptomatic cases and contact identifications rose in the city during the pilot while they fell in Manchester over the same period.
Crozier said that it is often difficult to find strong effects in such studies and that the appearance of the new B117 variant further complicated the comparison. He noted, though, that ultimately the testing program was not able to prevent the wave of infections that washed over Liverpool and the UK more broadly this winter.
"It seemed for a while that Liverpool might have been holding off that second wave more than comparable cities, but in the end it basically got hit as badly as everywhere else," he said. "It doesn't seem from the initial analysis that it was able to prevent the second wave or keep society more open, which I think is probably quite an important finding."
Sheila Bird, a researcher in the Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit at the University of Cambridge, said that the Liverpool project provided the best evaluation of a COVID-19 mass screening approach to date, though she noted that the results reflected the performance of the Innova test and that other assays might show better performance.
Angela Raffle, honorary senior lecturer in population health sciences at Bristol Medical School, Raffle compared the trajectory of infections in Bristol, where she lives, to those in Liverpool, similarly noting that there was little apparent difference between the two, despite the latter's rapid testing efforts.
Raffle also voiced her concern that the test's performance varied depending on who was conducting it. While it showed 77 percent sensitivity in validation studies when used by trained staff, that figure dropped to 58 percent for self-trained members of the general public, though, as researchers from the Liverpool project noted in a response to criticism in a BMJ commentary by scientists skeptical of the effort, that gap in performance could close as the public becomes more experienced in using the tests. Members of the Liverpool team and others also published a commentary this week in The Lancet addressing some of the criticisms of the Innova test and the UK efforts.
Raffle additionally questioned whether a serial home testing program, as some have advocated for, would actually reach the most at-risk members of the community consistently.
"It will be the least at-risk people who do the tests and they will be doing them for reassurance value, and the people who are on really low incomes, in multi-generational households in cramped conditions with precarious work, they aren't going to be doing serial tests at home," she said.
The Liverpool project did find wide variation in test usage across the city's population, with uptake among the most economically deprived fifth of the population roughly half (17 percent) of that in the most economically advantaged fifth of the populations (33 percent). Additionally, the positivity rate among the least advantaged was double that in the most advantaged populations (1 percent compared to .5 percent).
Residents also cited as a major disincentive to testing their fear that they would not have the resources they needed to isolate in the event of a positive test. In the Liverpool pilot, 95 percent of positive cases self-isolated, but Crozier suggested that concerns about the inability to isolate significantly impacted test uptake.
"Self-isolating when you have a positive test result requires financial and practical support from the health authorities or the government," he said.
There is also the concern that individuals could take a negative test result to mean that they are clear to go about their normal lives. The Liverpool researchers noted in their report that they did not have enough data to draw any "firm conclusions" about this dynamic, but said that "there were no alarming indicators in survey results."
According to survey data from the Liverpool project, 62 percent of people said a negative result would be unlikely to lead to a change in behavior, though 9 percent said they were likelier to visit friends and 7 percent said they were more likely to go to work following a negative result.
Raffle said that from her perspective, the results of the Liverpool study showed "that mass community testing is a huge waste of time and resources, and could actually be counterproductive."
Crozier was less critical but suggested that more targeted use of rapid antigen testing would probably prove more feasible and more useful than a true mass screening campaign. For instance, he cited daily antigen testing of people who have had contact with COVID-19-positive individuals as a possible alternative to self-isolation, particularly given that many such individuals are not complying with self-isolation guidelines.
"A lot of critics of that argue that you will get some false negatives, and some will slip through the net, and you probably will," he said. "But I think we have to look at the reality of the situation and see that we have less than 30 percent self-isolation rates here. If you test, it sort of gives, not a free pass, but people don't have to self-isolate, and they are more likely [to isolate] if they do receive a positive result."
Such an approach would have the added benefit of helping to quickly identify clusters of infections, Crozier said, another area where he said he saw rapid antigen testing as potentially playing an important role.
He said he also saw rapid antigen testing as potentially useful for screening at workplaces and schools in combination with molecular testing. That way, people who test positive on the antigen test can begin self-isolating immediately, preventing them from spreading the virus while they await the results of their molecular test.
"Again, this is sort of accepting the reality of the situation that these workers are still working for two or three days while awaiting the PCR results," he said.
Rapid antigen assays for SARS-CoV-2 "aren't a perfect test, but they can be a public health tool, and they can get around certain problems that we have," Crozier said. "The counterfactual is the current situation, which, let's be real, isn't working."
"Are Innova Medical test kits FDA Approved?"
The Biotime antibody test was authorized (EUA) in July.
The Biotime/Innova antigen and PCR tests do not have EUA.
The FDA list of all authorized tests.
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/vitro-diagnostics-euas
The Osang test is a PCR test that was listed on the QDX app back in July 2020, right after the big announcement of the agreement with Microgen with their Texas lab-based molecular test. Then nothing about either of them for 7 months.
And nothing from MIG USA, the other big July announcement.