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.
Im just saying they posted actual distributors that they signed. Its actual news not fluff prs. Ive called both of those companys they are real companies...
I think this stock will be one of the biggest storys of the next few years surpassing even the tesla story.
Im just sharing my thoughts.
A lot of the other companies at subpenny like for instance the weed stocks or dewmar like to post prs every other day it seems.
These guys dont say much, and thats for the best.
When they get seriously big sales, that will speak for itself.
If anything this company has more conservative management than some multibillion dollar companys. Another reason im invested in them.
They have not put out anything but actual news of whats happened i havent seen any pump prs.
They could have put out a pr announcing percentage of revenue increase year to year etc. they just have said whats actually happening.
Ive never once been interested in a penny stock and certainly not a sunpenny stock before this.
This is a disruptive technology.
It clearly is not just some guy with a website, they have epa approvals.
I don't know why people keep acting like this isn't a real product here.
Its not selling huge numbers, but i dont know what that has to do with the product.
You dont magically get sales because you have a great product.
You certainly don't exactly spark a torrent of people beating down your door for a disruptive disinfectant cleaner.....
People just buy bleach and lysol for the most part. That doesn't mean they don't have an interest in a superior product. Hell people buy concrobium for its mold spore killing and it has no cleaning power whatsoever just kills mold spores. That is available at the box stores and has reviews on amazon though.
It takes time!
Theres no engadget of disinfectant products.
This isn't a hot market used to disruption. Its a very hard market to penetrate.
They didn't have epa approval or a sales team.
Angel seems to be either bipolar, trolling or has some other agenda ive seen him do that quite a few times here.
I have no idea whats up with that lol
no.
Its not like radiation. You'll be perfectly fine as long as you arent sitting there breathing in a massive amounts of fumes or drinking the bottle.
You can not kill 100% of germs without the product being "toxic".
Hydrogen peroxide is one of the main ingredients. You actually can drink hydrogen peroxide if diluted heavily, but pure hydrogen peroxide would be very toxic for you to drink.
Anyway, what your talking about with that is a non issue.
Whats matters is its non corrosive to surfaces and breaks down to nontoxic and not bad for the environment pretty quickly.
Its biodegradable. It is not however non toxic until it degrades you certainly dont want to drink it or breath in a lot of the fumes.
Anything that can kill 100% of germs can not be nontoxic until degraded by oxygen as it has to kill organisms...
An increase of 6500 from 555=12 times........
The rational is super simple, that i used to invest in bioneutral.
This company has been valued at multiple dollars at its inceptions. The implications of its product lead o that valuation. However the market was overly optimistic as at the time they were quite a few years away from commercialization.
Now, they are the beginning of their ascent to widespread commercialization. They have signed their first distributors and gone from zero revenue when it was multiple dollars, to revenue growth of 12 times in one year.
Inversely to the growth of their company from a startup with a product with years of testing and talking to distributors ahead of them, to a company getting their product out in the marketplace and actually selling it, the stock price has deflated to close to its lowest point and hangs at a point slightly above that, with fear and uncertainty keeping it there.
however as the last run showed, the market sees a disparity here.
Of course that fear and uncertainty hold back the company from having a permanent increase in share price.
But the second that uncertainty turns to real hope as sales start to reach numbers that cant be dismissed as dismal despite being large strides forward, the share price will make another run, and probably approach a cent before coming back to a more reserved level and staying there.
Then that hope will begin its process of turning to faith as contracts come in and sales numbers have gone from "dismal" to "pretty good" to "promising".
That will spark a gradual increase in share price probably a few runs and falls etc.
At some point, perhaps this year perhaps next year, perhaps even the year after that, faith will be replaced with knowingness as it becomes abundantly clear the product is beginning to penetrate the marketplace extensively.
large contract(s) with a huge distributor, the government, hospitals etc will start to come in and revenue will reach the millions and the share price will begin to hit the .10 cent mark etc talked about and slowly go through a new version of the same cycle with new investors doubting its ability to actually become a top product in the marketplace, reach 150 million $ revenue etc.
Once that process is complete, the company could actually end up back where it started pps wise at multiple dollars. For those that either hold or buy and sell at the right times - fortunes will be made.
Of course, I could be wrong.
But you know, i predicted tesla, i predicted netflix, i predicted apple, i predicted the price of gold rising dramatically in 2002 while in high school.... So i feel good about my long term powers of seeing value and long term trends.
As for exact time frames, well that would require a crystal ball. One can get nailed by the market on the short term as it is effected heavily by fear and is generally very short sighted and yet wildly optimistic about long term prospects for short periods of time.
for instance tesla went from 180 to 120 (a price i predicted would be its turn around point) based on some ridiculous blowing out of proportion of car fires and a quarterly report that was not up to the expectations of rumor mill number crunching of vins.
One thing ive begun to notice i need to further refine is the principle of how it seems every run in price has a short term pull downward that is almost inevitable if that run is only happening based on hope and not knowing. Sell after those and rebuy when the price reaches the point it was before hope lifted the boat temporarily.
or just be lazy and buy at a low risk entry point and see whats happening every once in a while then wake up rich one day if your investment premise was correct. The motley fool way.
Awesome man! Leave a review on amazon i plan on buying a gallon in the next few weeks after i finish moving into my new house (bought cash, super excited, although renovations took forever).
A few good reviews can make a product start to pop on amazon.
The chemistry of the ygiene makes it into a powerful cleaner of porous surfaces as well as a disinfectant. If you'd like to spend all day powerwashing then kill the mold spores with something like concrobium you could do that, or you could apply ygiene and have your powerwash take less than an hour and then seal the deck with a waterproof sealant.
Watch the video where they clean a deck.
Lol i think most people dont want massive amounts of green trichoderma/other molds growing all over their decks.
I think regular powerwashing takes significantly longer than spraying ygiene leaving it there for like 3 minutes and powerwashing the mold off in one stroke.
If you really think this revenue increase isnt a great sign, you should watch some videos from vishen lahkiani the ceo of mindvalley.
He gives an elaborate explanation of how his company went from 700 to 40 million.
he said at first his goal became only to make enough money to buy a subway sandwich everyday from his business.
At that point it was only months until that became 2 sandwiches, in a year or two it was millions.
Steady revenue increases are what matters more than anything.
Obviously a dime is not in the cards for the near future.
He said 150,000,000 is his target for 5 years from now.
The company posted gross revenues of 555 last years first three months, and 7000 this years. Thats a huge increase.
Sales always begin with a drip that build pressure into a steady trickle and then at some point a deluge begins.
They are at the point where they are selling more than enough for word of mouth to begin having an exponential effect.
Growth is the key word here. If they continue at this rate of growth exponentially. heres the numbers. 555 for the three months of last year is 12 times. 12 times 12 =150
150*7000=1,059,000.
Being more conservative if its not exponential and its just 12 times, that means 84,000 at the 2015 10q.
This 10q is great. They already have nearly surpassed their gross profit for the entire year last year.
7000 in three months, and thats during the winter, and at the very beginning of sales initiatives by their new distributors.
Pretty damn good. I expect next quarter we'll see around 14000 in revenue. I think the next three months they will get a lot of sales to people doing deck powerwashing.
If you remember there was a time not long ago when tesla didnt sell their product, and then a good amount of time where they sold minuscule amounts and where used as a talking point by mitt romney about the terrible losing investment of government money in hairbrained schemes like electric cars.
Review it on amazon!
Yeah like i said not gonna be investing in them for now. I suspect i far lower risk entry point will appear with the inevitable delays and disillusionment that will come.
I do however think the actual project has a good chance of succeeding.
Of course itll last. There regulations limiting the amount of competitors, and the price is kept high by the fact that nearly the entire market for the substance, is currently illegal.
Also, growing GREAT weed is a good bit harder (not really, but its more knowing what to do and having a standard for it) but a nutrition supplement company is far more poised to do it than some hippies/a bunch of stoners.
Eventually when weed becomes something everyone can grow in their house locally grown varieties competing with large scale grows will eventually drive price down. For now tho colorado has already shown the price still stays lofty.
Its only been reduced from obscene to insanely profitable over there.
And for super high quality you still kinda get to name your price.
That being said im not gonna be investing in them at the moment.
I love how people think growing weed is some massively hard undertaking. Quite frankly, its pretty easy. Growing GREAT weed is a bit harder though.
Of course securing that much is a big commitment, but its certainly doable.
For quite a long time, growing that much weed will make you rake in profits like a druglord, and your doing it legally. Considering that druglords create operations just like this using large groups of armed men to secure their product, and facing extreme violence and the threat of federal prosecution.... I think its safe to say the opportunity is lucrative enough.
sure you could make a few million by some kind of pump scheme maybe, or you could make absolutely wild amounts of cash selling marijuana.
The whole where is the market thing is insane.
Comeon now... Lets be serious here its mj we are talking about here.
If it was recreational it would be totally unlimited but lets be real here a lot of the medical market goes straight to the recreational and fitx isnt responsible for that.
And no one but the antiweed people really give a damn about that as long as they get their cut.
Lol im not invested in this company (yet) but i really dont see this. all the otc stocks are diamonds in the rough thing.
I very very rarely see any that have any kind of compelling product or service.
These guys don't yet either however building a facility to grow weed is not rocket science so they have quite a shot at success with approval.
That being said no one is truly making a compelling case in the mj sector for an amazing business.
Growlife is a plant growing company with competitors that have a probably superior product (aerogrow) fitx is a nutrition company not particularly successful as one, but with a founder smart enough and high enough to go for the green rush and actually plant the product... Etc
My feeling is that the big success in mj will come from someone who grows the product incredibly well, but do they really need to take their company public?
A equipment company that sells something that insures premium bud will make many millions. Im just not so sure about any of these mj stocks products tho.
i see bonu going up multiples of a thousand percent at the first sign that success of the company is on the way.
A contract with a hospital, government, anything like that - and this shoots up and never looks back. I got myself out of a winning investment that keeps winning to get in this thing and im not even sweating losing quite a bit from where i bought because im quiet sure about this companys long term prospects.
I personally am going to be buying a good amount of ygiene for my own usage. Theres no other product capable of doing what ygiene does, and that WILL be worth millions.
If you add up the buys preceding that 24 million share sale it seems you get quite a close number to 24 million.
Which makes one wonder who would do such a thing as buy all those shares then immediately sell them for less, unless it was a market maker attempting to keep this thing from hitting another run before news.
this cycling between 10 11 12 is perfect for slow accumulation of shares.
When this company has its first great quarter, the ones who just want to ride little runs will make tiny profits those who stay long because they realize that the company only recently got the ball rolling on sales, will make massive profits.
This company just began its ascent. Mergers or no mergers, they will get large contracts. Its not exactly goin to be hard to post some serious revenue increases from here, and thats the tip of the iceberg.
I wouldn't call a sterilant that kills all microbes ordinary at best, but thats just me.
That being said im just going to live my life and check up in a few weeks to see whats happened.
Im so confident about the prospects of this kind of product and the time being ripe for its advancement in the marketplace, that i dont even care to watch it.
I have a long history of picking winning products long before they become popular.
To me this is better than investing early in netflix.
Its a disruptive product in a market that has never really expected disruption.
But the best part is that its a stock that people have lost all faith in with a product thats just as good as was when announced. That means it outrageously underpriced.
On the arrival of any sort of good news about contracts this thing shoots through the roof.
I cant figure out why they would be selling zero odor, a competing product, if there is no plan to work together. Theres also steris.
The fact that they still have the bioneutral GROUP website up still is also interesting.
If there was a merger between these companies that would be a complete line of products that would dominate the competition.
Zero odor has major distribution and about 260 mostly raving reviews on amazon.
Bioneutral would clearly have just as many raving reviews if they had that kind of distribution.
The only thing in the way is making the right deal to get that kind of distribution.
I see it as inevitable.
The interesting thing would be that zero odor has a few 4 bad reviews because it cant truly remove very powerful odors. They could upgrade their chemistry with ogiene significantly. Combine that with ygiene to remove the SOURCE of odors, and you have a true solution, as opposed to bandaids like febreeze etc. that fill the marketplace
It is. Slowly.
It takes a long time to get professional accounts. Especially with hospitals.
It takes serious advertising or media attention to get the consumer market. And retail distribution.
It took apple over a year and a half to sell the first 1 million ipods, and thats with national advertising, and media attention.
Music is pretty popular.
Cleaning products are also but people arent losing their minds anticipating the next cleaning revolution.
That does not mean however that they wont buy the superior product when advertised to effectively.
Hospitals on the other hand ARE looking for a solution to hospital acquired infections and the us government even more so, having specific infection reduction targets which they are already missing.
Mold remediation/industry will use it when they hear though word of mouth that the results are as effective as they are.
Got myself 8 million shares before this this thing disrupts the entire industry.
Thats all i care about. Did i get the perfect price? No, but thats like quibbling about getting in at the perfect time on apple when they had just released the ipod.
Pure is 1.50 but clorox is 88$.
These guys have a far superior version of every product clorox has.
In the short term, as soon as they get to 100,000 revenue they will explode like lean slow motion potion. That could be one contract away.
In the long term, they have a technology that makes all the ip of a company with an 11 billion dollar market cap, obsolete.
So personally, im just going to sit back, enjoy my life, and be the lazy long term investor with this from this point.
Ive done enough research to become convinced absolutely nothing on the market comes close.
People should know this.
I happen to also grow edible mushrooms for fun, so i understand the value of sterilants.
This stock is underlooked because few people understand either the magnitude of hospital acquired infections (4th leading cause of death) or the fact that 99.9 percent of pathogens killed actually means a shit ton of pathogens are NOT killed only temp surpressed and continue to infect the environment.
With mushrooms, once tricoderma is in the air its practically impossible to get it out of the environment and you have to obsessively avoid any exposure to moving air or it will infect the mushrooms.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC99773/#!po=80.1282
"
Bacterial Spores Survive Treatment with Commercial Sterilants and Disinfectants
Jose-Luis Sagripanti and Aylin Bonifacino
Additional article information
ABSTRACT
This study compared the activity of commercial liquid sterilants and disinfectants on Bacillus subtilis spores deposited on three types of devices made of noncorrodible, corrodible, or polymeric material. Products like Renalin, Exspor, Wavicide-01, Cidexplus, and cupric ascorbate were tested under conditions specified for liquid sterilization. These products, at the shorter times indicated for disinfection, and popular disinfectants, like Clorox, Cavicide, and Lysol were also studied. Data obtained with a sensitive and quantitative test suggest that commercial liquid sterilants and disinfectants are less effective on contaminated surfaces than generally acknowledged.
Different reports agree that 5 to 10% (1.75 to 3.5 million) of the 35 million patients annually admitted to hospitals in the United States acquire an infection during hospitalization (5, 6, 22). More than 850,000 of these have been estimated to be implant- and device-related infections (2). Abundant data linking the transmission of various diseases (including AIDS, tuberculosis, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, as well as hospital epidemics of infections with Pseudomonas, Serratia, and Bacillus species) to medical devices suggest that the effectiveness of disinfection and sterilization practices has been overestimated (21).
The capacity to kill bacterial spores determines how a commercial product will be marketed. Disinfectants are not expected to kill all bacterial spores and are used to decontaminate devices that ordinarily do not penetrate tissues or that touch only intact skin (3, 16, 25). Sterilants are expected to kill all microorganisms, including bacterial spores, and are used to treat devices that penetrate tissue or present a high risk if unsterile. Viable spores still attached to various materials could remain undetected by current sporicidal tests (1), resulting in overestimation of the sporicidal activity of sterilizing agents (4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15). The goal of this study was to compare the sporicidal activities of commercial liquid sterilants under manufacturer-specified conditions by using a sensitive method able to quantitatively account for the survival of all spores on contaminated carrier devices.
Selection of carrier devices. The device to which spores are attached might alter the sporicidal activity of some germicidal agents (19). Therefore, the criteria used to select the carrier devices that we tested were based on the following practical considerations: (i) diverse material composition, (ii) geometry representative of medical devices, (iii) similar spore load capacities, (iv) size amenable to microtesting, and (v) cost. Miniature stainless steel machine screws (no. 0/80, pan head, 1.5 mm in diameter, and 12.5 mm long) were purchased at a local hardware store (Home Depot, Rockville, Md.) or from Thompson & Cooke (Bladensburg, Md.). Dental burs (FG 557) made of carbon steel were manufactured by Midwest Dental Products Corporation (Des Plaines, Ill.). Medical-grade silicone rubber tubing, 3.1-mm outer diameter and 1.5-mm inner diameter (Silastic; catalog no. 602-285), was manufactured by Dow Corning Corporation Medical Products (Midland, Mich.) and used in 12.5-mm-long sections. All devices were cleaned prior to use by washing with detergent, rinsing three times with distilled water, washing once in acetone, and rinsing again in distilled water before sterilization by autoclaving. The devices were immersed 5 mm deep in spore-loading suspensions. This procedure contaminated areas of 20, 40, and 78 mm2 on dental burs, screws, and tubing, respectively. Likely due to differences in geometry and materials, the test described below loaded similar numbers of spores onto the three devices in spite of the different immersed areas. The miniature stainless steel screws and small sections of medical-grade silicone rubber tubing were small enough to fit our microtest format and inexpensive (costing 6 and 3 cents each, respectively). Easy availability of tubing, burs, and screws made custom manufacturing of carriers unnecessary. Their low cost allowed these carriers to be used only once and then discarded, thus preventing spore carryover and the need to wash and sterilize the carriers between tests.
Direct measurement of spores loaded onto carriers. Spores of Bacillus subtilis subsp. globigii (Spordex) were purchased from AMSCO American Sterilizer Co. (Erie, Pa.) with a reported D value for dry-heat killing at 160°C of 2.2 min and a D value for ethylene oxide killing (600 mg/liter at 54°C) of 3.5 min, respectively. The number of spores loaded onto carriers was determined by using radioactively labeled spores. A method that produces dry-heat-resistant spores in synthetic medium (8, 13, 23) was modified in our laboratory so that it would result in maximum incorporation of radiolabeled precursor as previously described (19). A rapidly growing culture (106 bacteria in 5 ml) was inoculated into 300 ml of synthetic sporulating medium in which methionine was replaced with radioactive l-[methyl-14C]methionine (0.33 Ci/ml; NEC165H; 50 mCi/mmol; New England Nuclear, Boston, Mass.). After 5 days of incubation at 32°C in a shaker operating at 140 rpm, cultures were chilled in ice and spores were pelleted by centrifugation for 30 min at 900 × g in a Beckman TJ-R refrigerated centrifuge. After five cycles of centrifugation and resuspension in new Luria-Bertani (LB) broth, the radioactivity in the supernatant was reduced to less than 2% of the radioactivity in the pellet containing the spores. Samples from each batch of spores radioactively labeled and concentrated in our laboratory or nonradiolabeled spores obtained commercially (Spordex) were microscopically examined and exposed to acid for confirmation of spore morphology and chemical resistance as previously described (18). No vegetative cells (rods) were observed during the counting of 1,000 radioactively labeled or nonlabeled spores. Spores were exposed for various time periods to either deionized, glass-distilled, autoclave-sterile water (controls) or hydrochloric acid (2.5 N). After exposure they were neutralized with ice-cold LB broth (Advanced Biotechnology IC, Columbia, Md.) and titrated onto broth-agar (LB broth [Miller-Difco, Detroit, Mich.], 1.5% Agar Select [Gibco-BRL, Paisley, Scotland]) plates 100 mm in diameter. Typical spore survival in hydrochloric acid for 5 and 10 min was 100 and 88%, respectively.
Spores labeled with [14C]methionine were diluted in LB broth, and identical aliquots were either titrated for viability or counted for radioactivity. The specific activity of each spore preparation was obtained from the slope of the regression line of spore number (as determined by titration) versus incorporated 14C label (measured by scintillation counting). We transferred various devices to Eppendorf polypropylene tubes (1.5 ml) containing 50 µl of 14C-labeled spores at different concentrations. Each device was immersed in a separate spore-loading suspension for 30 min. The devices were then removed from the loading suspension with forceps and dried for 10 min under vacuum (Speed Vac; Savant, Farmingdale, N.Y.). Each 50-µl suspension was used once and then discharged.
The spore load on each device was estimated by immersing the loaded devices in scintillation liquid, measuring radioactivity, and multiplying this value by the specific activity of the preparation. One large batch with a specific activity of 1.7 × 103 ± 0.3 × 103 spores per cpm was used for final calibration of all devices. The number of spores attached to no. 0/80 stainless steel screws (ranging from 6.0 × 106 to 6.5 × 106) was comparable to that loaded into medical-grade silicone rubber tubing (3.8 × 106) immersed in a spore suspension with a similar spore concentration (1.7 × 109/ml). The increase in the number of spores loaded onto the stainless steel screws or silicone rubber tubing was approximately linear with increasing concentrations of the loading suspension in the range of 107 to 1010 spores/ml. This contaminating procedure loaded, on average, 3 spores per 1,000 spores/ml of the loading suspension.
Sterilants and disinfectants. Cidexplus (3.4% glutaraldehyde, pH 8.0; Johnson and Johnson Medical Inc., Arlington, Tex.) was activated as specified and used full strength at 21°C over a period of either 10 h, for sterilization, or 20 min, as indicated for high-level disinfection. Exspor (Alcide Corp., Redmond, Wash.), containing 1.52% sodium chlorite, was activated daily before experiments by mixing 1 part base concentrate, 4 parts water, and 1 part activator (yielding a pH between 2.3 and 2.7). The label prescribes the treatment of medical items with an Exspor-activated solution for 10 h to achieve sterilization and for 1 to 3 min for killing of Mycobacterium sp. and other bacteria, pathogenic fungi, and viruses on hard surfaces. Renalin (Renal Systems Division of Minntech Corp., Minneapolis, Minn.), a mixture of 20.0% hydrogen peroxide and 4.0% peroxyacetic acid, was used as recommended for sterilization at a dilution of 1:5 (final dilution; pH 1.8) in sterile, deionized, and glass-distilled water for an 11-h exposure. Wavicide-01 (2% glutaraldehyde; Wave Energy Systems, Wayne, N.J.) was used full strength for 10 h at 21°C as a sterilant or at a 1:4 dilution for 10 min (at room temperature [21°C]), as specified for killing of vegetative bacteria and viruses. Clorox (5.25% sodium hypochlorite, manufactured by The Clorox Company, Oakland, Calif.) was used at a 1:21 dilution, as recommended for disinfection. Lysol I.C. (7.24% o-benzyl-p-chlorophenol and 2.23% o-phenylphenol; National Laboratories, Montvale, N.J.) was used at the 1:128 dilution specified for use in hospitals, nursing homes, dental offices, and other institutional facilities as a germicidal, tuberculocidal, pseudomonacidal, staphylococcidal, fungicidal, and virucidal compound. Cavicide (15.30% isopropanol and 0.25% diisobutyl phenoxyethoxyethyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride; Micro Aseptic Products, Inc., Palatine, Ill.) was used full strength, as specified for disinfection of noncritical medical instruments. Cupric chloride (CuCl2 · 2H2O; Mallinckrodt Specialty Chemicals, Paris, Ky.), l-ascorbic acid, and (30% wt/vol) hydrogen peroxide (both from Aldrich Chemical, Milwaukee, Wis.) were used in a mixture (0.5% cupric ions [as cupric chloride]–0.1% ascorbic acid–0.003% hydrogen peroxide, pH 2.9).
Sporicidal test on contaminated medical devices. Each carrier device was independently immersed in a tube with 50 µl of a suspension of radiolabeled spores (1.7 × 109 spores/ml). After drying, the devices were divided into two identical groups. In one group, the number of spores loaded into each device was measured radioactively. Devices in the second group were incubated at 20°C in 400 µl of disinfectant (three devices per disinfectant in separate tubes) for the time period specified on the respective product label or in an equal volume of sterile distilled water for 30 min, as a control for spore survival. After incubation, each device was removed from the test tube, the remaining disinfectant was diluted with 600 µl of ice-chilled LB broth, and the tube was centrifuged (5 min at 15,000 rpm in a model 5414 Microfuge [Brinkman Instruments Inc., Westbury, N.Y.]). The supernatant with diluted disinfectant was discarded; the spores in the pellet were resuspended by vortexing in fresh, ice-chilled LB broth (1 ml); and this sample containing loosely adherent spores was named fraction a. The device removed in the step described above was transferred to 400 µl of distilled water and sonicated for 5 min (Ultrasonic Cleaner; Cole Parmer, Chicago, Ill.). After sonication, the device was removed and 600 µl of ice-chilled LB broth was added to the 400 µl of water. This sample with spores removed by sonication was named fraction b. To recover viable spores still remaining on the carriers after fractions a and b had been obtained, the devices were incubated in 400 µl of fresh LB broth for 30 min at 32°C in a shaker operating at 140 rpm. The device was removed and counted in scintillation liquid, and lack of radioactivity confirmed the absence of detectable spores. Six hundred microliters of ice-chilled LB broth was added to the broth left after device removal, and this sample with spores dislodged after 30 min of shaking in medium was named fraction c. The incubation time of fraction c (30 min) was shorter than the period required for spores of B. subtilis to germinate and replicate, thus preventing overestimation of surviving organisms (data not shown). Fractions a, b, and c were serially diluted in LB broth, and the surviving spores in each fraction were titrated by serial dilution on LB broth agar plates.
The overall recovery ratio of the method was calculated as the sum of spores titrated in fractions a, b, and c (ranging from 2.9 × 106 to 10.9 × 106 spores) after treatment with water divided by the average number of spores loaded (estimated radioactively). The spore recovery of the three-step method was 1.02 ± 0.22 (average fraction of the starting spore number ± the standard error (SE) in six independent experiments) for 0/80 stainless steel screws, a value nearly identical to the recovery previously obtained for silicone catheter tubing (1.02 ± 0.59). The recoveries of nonradiolabeled or radiolabeled spores in fractions a, b, and c were similar with all of the devices studied. Therefore, nonradioactive spores were used after the number of spores loaded onto each device was calibrated and it was established that the three-step method accounted for all of the challenge spores. By using the same devices and procedure, other laboratories could reproduce this test without further calibration or need for radioactive spores.
We included positive and negative controls for sporicidal activity in each experiment to allow monitoring of intertest performance. Water was chosen as the negative control because of its lack of sporicidal activity and common availability (no killing or 100% spore survival). Stability in dry chemical form and relatively low cost made cupric ascorbate a convenient positive control for sporicidal activity that produced a significant, consistent, and relatively time-independent (between 30 min and 10 h) reduction in spore survival (see Table ?Table11).
The sporicidal test that we developed has several valuable characteristics. (i) It is quantitative. The number of spores attached to the devices before disinfection was directly measured with radiolabeled spores. Absence of spore attachment to the carrier at the end of the testing process is easily confirmed by determining lack of remaining radioactivity. A recovery value of nearly 1 in the negative controls demonstrates that all of the loaded spores are accountable for by the test. This is a clear advantage over methods that estimate carrier load indirectly by measuring the spores dislodged from the device to an unknown extent. Furthermore, determining the surviving fraction at each step of the test by counting colonies from surviving spores is more precise and informative than scoring growth or nongrowth as in other sporicidal tests. (ii) It is rapid. Our procedure was completed within 4 h, not counting overnight colony development. (iii) It is economical and environmentally friendly. The technique uses only 400 µl of disinfectant, resulting, for all practical purposes, in a nondestructive test that saves reagents and reduces the amount of toxic and infectious waste produced.
Effect of germicides on contaminated devices. Devices carrying 3.8 × 106 to 6.2 × 106 spores of B. subtilis were exposed once to various sterilizing agents or to water, and the spores titrated in fractions a, b, and c are shown in Fig. ?Fig.11 (tubing) and 2 (screws). It was unclear how much the sporicidal activity of products labeled as liquid sterilants differed from that of common disinfectants. To answer this question, we also measured the relative sporicidal activities of products not intended for liquid sterilization but recommended for disinfection of medical devices used in patients with AIDS or decontamination of surfaces during epidemics or bacteriological warfare or widely used as household disinfectants (9, 10, 20, 24). The spore survival results shown in Fig. ?Fig.11 and ?and22 and Table ?Table11 confirm that general disinfectants (not specifically labeled for liquid sterilization, like Cavicide, Clorox, and Lysol) do not kill spores on contaminated devices and, thus, should never be employed in this capacity.
FIG. 1
Effects of germicides on spores deposited on silicone rubber medical tubing. Spores were loaded onto tubing, dried, and exposed for the times prescribed on the products’ labels either for sterilization or for disinfection (indicated on the X axis). ...
FIG. 2
Spore survival after treatment of stainless steel screws. Reagents and conditions were as described in the text and in the legend to Fig. ?Fig.1.1. Bar height represents the mean ± the SE of the number of viable spores obtained in fractions ...
Figures ?Figures11 and ?and22 show that the proportion of viable spores recovered in each fraction varies for different products and treatment times. For all products, a one-step procedure (fraction a with loosely adherent spores) failed to detect all of the spores remaining viable after treatment (Fig. ?(Fig.11 and ?and2).2). Spore recovery in fraction a was often lower than after sonication and 30 min of shaking in culture medium, respectively (fractions b and c in Fig. ?Fig.11 and ?and2).2). This could be a consequence of fixing or trapping of viable spores on the device surface by chemical cross-linking with the germicide. No viable spore could be detected in fraction a after treatment of tubing with the most active disinfectant (Renalin incubated for 11 h; Fig. ?Fig.1).1). However, by using a procedure that completely recovers attached spores, a few spores were detected after sonication in fraction b and several hundred spores were easily detected after 30 min of shaking in medium (fraction c). Often, the number of surviving spores detected in fraction a differed by more than 1 log from the total number of viable spores (fractions a, b, and c in Fig. ?Fig.11 and ?and2).2). Products whose effectiveness would be overestimated by more than 10-fold by a one-step recovery method included Cavicide, Cidexplus, Exspor, Lysol, and Renalin. Thus, these findings indicate that the sporicidal activity of disinfectants and sterilants will likely be overestimated by methods that dislodge spores in only one step (obtaining results equivalent to those obtained with fraction a) or by tests in which the recovery of loaded spores is unknown.
Comparative sporicidal activity. The total log of spore killing was obtained by subtracting the log of the total number of viable spores after exposure of devices to disinfectants (titrated in fractions a, b, and c) from the log of the number of spores surviving treatment with water. The values obtained for each device-disinfectant combination are displayed in Table ?Table1.1. The survival of spores on contaminated dental burs was higher than on the other two devices. Disinfection of carbon steel dental burs produced corrosion stains on the devices and a fine precipitate at the bottoms of the test tubes. The higher spore survival correlated with obvious corrosion, and therefore, data on burs were not considered for comparison or ranking of products. The severe corrosion observed after treatment with commercial disinfectants made carbon steel dental burs inadequate as carriers for sporicidal testing. Deterioration after a single test and increased spore survival demonstrate that dental burs (and likely other devices containing carbon steel) must not be decontaminated with liquid disinfectants in spite of instructions to the contrary on the labels of some carbon steel devices. In contrast, the other two materials in this study were impervious to all disinfecting treatments. Stainless steel screws and silicone rubber catheter tubing did not show signs of deterioration after visual and microscopic examination (×160 magnification). These findings agree with the relative resistance of stainless steel and medical-grade silicone rubber to corrosion (17). Similar spore recovery and killing (within 1 log) by the same disinfectant on both devices (Table ?(Table1)1) suggest that testing on stainless steel screws and medical silicone rubber tubing should provide an adequate estimation of sporicidal activity on medical devices.
Cidexplus is specified to be used for up to 28 days after activation. The label of Renalin indicates that the diluted solution must be used within a 7-day period as a sterilant for dialyzer reprocessing. These sterilants were tested at various times after activation or dilution. No significant change in the sporicidal activity of Cidexplus or Renalin was detected on contaminated silicone tubing, dental burs, and stainless steel screws during a 28- or 7-day test period, respectively (data not shown).
The incubation time specified in the labeling of products intended for sterilization is 10 or 11 h. Much shorter incubation times (a few minutes) are specified for use of the same products as sterilants. Changes in incubation time had a distinct effect on spore killing produced by different formulations specified as sterilants (Table ?(Table1).1). Extending treatment with Wavicide-01 from 10 min to 10 h caused a relatively large increase (more than 100 times) in sporicidal activity. In contrast, extending treatment with Exspor or cupric ascorbate from a few minutes to 10 h did not produce a substantial increase in sporicidal activity (less than a 10-fold difference between short and long exposures). Unexpectedly, spore killing on screws was slightly higher after 20 min than after 10 h of incubation with Cidexplus in four independent comparative experiments (Table ?(Table1).1). These findings suggest that the sporicidal activity of some products may be exhausted after a relatively short incubation period and highlight the importance of precise adherence to the times specified by the particular product’s label.
Glutaraldehyde and peroxi compounds are common active ingredients used in liquid sterilization and high-level disinfection (3, 9, 10, 16, 21, 25). However, commercial products with these active ingredients had quite different sporicidal potencies after incubation for the similar periods (10 and 11 h of treatment) recommended for sterilization. The reduction of spore numbers ranged from 2,500- to 56,000-fold for Cidexplus and Renalin, respectively (Table ?(Table11).
The substantial spore survival detected in this study after treatment of devices with commercial sterilants conflicts with the concept of sterilization, defined as the destruction of all life, including bacterial spores."
All i really need to know feel great about this investment is this:
http://www.health.gov/hai/prevent_hai.asp#hai_measures
"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has identified the reduction of HAIs as an Agency Priority Goal for the Department. By September 30, 2013, HHS is committed to reducing the national rate of HAIs by demonstrating significant, quantitative, and measurable reductions in hospital-acquired central line-associated bloodstream infections and catheter-associated urinary tract infections.
Please visit HAI Agency Priority Goals for more information on HAI specific goals, including the progress made to date.
Please visit HHS Agency Priority Goals for more information on all of the HHS Agency Priority Goals.
Call to Action
There is growing consensus that our ultimate goal should be the elimination of HAIs. To coordinate and maximize the efficiency of prevention efforts, a senior-level Federal Steering Committee for the Prevention of Health Care-Associated Infections was established in 2008. Members include clinicians, scientists, and public health leaders who are high-ranking officials from the HHS, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Labor, and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The Steering Committee marshaled the extensive and diverse resources across the federal government, formed public and private partnerships, and initiated discussions that identified new approaches to HAI prevention and collaborations.
In 2009, the Steering Committee developed the National Action Plan to Prevent Health Care-Associated Infections: Road Map to Elimination (HAI Action Plan). At a meeting held in late 2010, subject matter experts (SMEs) met to discuss strategies to accelerate the progress toward national infection reduction goals. Since the 2010 meeting, several other large national meetings, as well as specific stakeholder meetings have taken place to build upon the strategies discussed at the 2010 meeting.
Collaboration
In April 2011, HHS announced another way it is committed to patient safety: Partnership for Patients. It is a public-private partnership to make hospital care safer, more reliable, and less costly by:
Keeping hospital patients from getting injured or sicker. By the end of 2013, to decrease instances of patients acquiring preventable conditions while in hospitals by 40 percent compared to 2010.
Helping patients heal without complication. By the end of 2013, to decrease preventable complications during a transition from one care setting to another, so that the number of patients who must be re-admitted to the hospital would be reduced by 20 percent compared to 2010.
- http://www.health.gov/hai/prevent_hai.asp#hai_measures
I wouldnt characterize being in testing by 170 potential large scale customers as doing nothing.
I wouldnt characterize 20000$ in sales as nothing either.
Anyone who has done internet marketing understands that it can take years to get the first trickle of income literally cents....then months to grow that to a few dollars then at some point that many times explodes into thousands of dollars almost out of nowhere. Once things are established they begin to move exponentially.
That 5 years was 5 years of rolling te ball up the hill.
They are about to send the ball DOWN the hill.
Put in those orders baby!
When your a millionaire in a few years, and this company is on the cover of forbes, you'll be glad you did.
;)
It seems to me that they've been holding this steris thing tight since 2010.
I havent been able to find anything else about it since they announced the agreement and that the terms and financing would be confidentional until the deal is done.
Having their sales guy just shows that plan did not disappear into the ether.
Can anyone explain why they have 50 million in expenditures if doesn't have anything to do with this?
I was doing some further research last night and i saw that in 2010 they had made an agreement to purchase all shares on steri7 a privatrly owned company owned by reza, which is a huge saudia investment firm that sells many products.
If you go to the steri 7 website you will see that it currently says "our site is temporarily offline due to updating and reconstruction.
http://www.steri-7.com
If you go to rezahygiene they sell the product
http://www.rezahygiene.com/1/products/view/ProdID/1666/RtnTab/75/PageIndex/1/CatID/34.aspx
Steri7 is a very broad spectrum sanitizer that has residual effects.
They have a hand sanitizer that beats anything on the market.
It seems to me that if bioneutral can offer that too they have the ultimate solution.
A solution that kills all pathogens and has extremely high cleaning power, and a solution that continues to fight pathogens while dry.
With a combination of this type of hand cleaner and bioneutral, along with the detection systems to make sure hospital personnel are actually using hand sanitizer, a hospital could effectively bring their infection rate down to virtually zero.
It actually saves a tremendous amount of money for them to do so.
Perhaps this is where that number of a 50 million total deficit comes from?
Buying the shares of steri?
I never saw them mention it again after announcing the agreement...
Yeah I dont see whats bad about a 400% increase in revenues from their last fiscal year. They accrued some new expenses, but that should be expected.
The ball has started down the hill and sales will start to rapidly accumulate as word gets out about the product.
This is the ultimate solution for both medical and industrial needs, and thats without accounting for the gigantic consumer market for both ygiene and ogiene that they can target when appropriate.
Most products with a significant advantage in technology have exponentially higher sales each year.
This kind of company will make tremendous profits when the sales are there.
The actual ingredients of these products are ridiculously cheap so the margin is high.
at 70 dollars a gallon they would need only about 14000 gallons sold to make a million dollars in revenue ina year.
If those 35 customers they already have started to order 400 gallons a year they would be there.
I cant sticky anything i don't think?
I just use my iphone to access ihub.
In calendar year 2013 we extended our commercialization strategy to sell our products into the healthcare and life sciences markets, and also into industrial markets. Within healthcare and life sciences, most of our customer’s perform trial testing of our products prior to purchasing which can significantly lengthen the selling cycle. To date our marketing efforts have led to 125 trials of our products. Our products have been ordered within the segments of university laboratory medical research, pharmaceutical manufacturing and veterinarian care. These trials have led to the addition of 35 new customers of our products.
For calendar 2013 we also targeted industrial market segments of mold remediation and industrial odor control. Within the industrial marketplace our products are trial tested as well prior to purchasing thereby lengthening the selling cycle in most cases. We signed two independent selling groups to represent our products. Collectively through the independent selling groups we have approximately 35 representatives throughout the United States marketing our products. In addition, we established a relationship with an Ohio based distributor of medical products. .
Based on the progress as noted above, we are generally pleased with the market reception of our products. Though the sales cycle has proved to be slower than originally planned for, management is generally encouraged by the current selling momentum and anticipates increases of new customers. We intend to expand our efforts to sell our products by offering them for sale through distribution. Recently we announced our new relationship with Quip Laboratories, a leading sales distribution company of biosafety products in the laboratory and biomedical research segments. We have other such relationships under consideration, and plan to vigorously pursue others to add to selling capacity"
Over 400% increase in revenues over 2012 in 2013 from 4588 in 2012 to 21,293 in 2013.
Lol if you invested in all of any venture capitalists deals many of them wouldnt do so well.
Considering the founders story is that he himself made a fortune off small caps to start the company, i wouldnt say that it would be a terrible idea to go to their small cap expo and take a look at who their picking and cherry pick from that list years later when ofs possible to see who has developed a real product/business model.
The majority of tech investments don't do well either its just that the few grandslam facebook/snapchat/etx etc. successes more than make up for those.
Anyway...
bonus main financier jmj actually makes an agreement with all companies they work with to never short the stock.
Yes because their model is that they can gain back money on their investment in the market by having an agreed upon advantage, that way when many of the high risk companies they invest in go bankrupt they can at least have gotten a portion of their original loan, or even some profits, depending.
That doesnt mean they dont care if the company does well. It just means they can play the market to make money. Basically its a way of using us to fund these companies through our investments. That doesn't mean the company cant do fantastic and make lots of money for a shareholder if 1. They buy at the right time 2. They hold until their shares reach a desired value
They dont just invest in any company. They strategically choose companies they think have a shot at success.
They would probably not even break even if they chose all companies that went bankrupt.