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.
"interest is compounding at 12 percent per annum."
What is the compound rate? Anually, quarterly, continuously?
Paige, it appears that Senzur was promoting products they never had.
Kinda Like MP's "suite of airport security products" which vanished once they got the EM-1 throught the "Army testing queue" and determined the scan footprint was too small.
Damn! Those bad B-boys fooled him real good didn't they?!!
He never should have started working for the scamsters.
Or was he already working for them during the Loch Harris Scam??
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE LOCH/CDEX SCAM IS THERE FOR ALL TO SEE, BUT WHO CARES IF YOU CAN STILL MAKE A BUCK OFF OF IT...RIGHT?
Scroll..... Yawn LOL! EOM
Sounds very familar Sanddollar.....
"According to the commission, the individuals charged are insiders or promoters of publicly traded companies, and live in Florida, New York, California, or Nevada."
Penny Stock Promoters??
Insiders??
Florida??
What does this mean?:
Current CDEX PPS = 0.23
Loch Harris Dilution Factor = 0.23/9.43 = 0.0244
CDEx Reverse Split Dilution Factor = 0.0244/5 = 0.0049
CDEx Current Outstanding Shares = 60 million
PP Share Selling Dilution Factor = 0.0049/(60/40)* = 0.0033
* CDEx original 40 million authorized shares (post R/S) was increased to 100 million with 60 million outstanding which equates to an additional 50% dilution.
LOCH HARRIS PPS EQUIVALENT = .0033
DON'T FALL IN LOVE WITH A PENNY STOCK
DON'T CALL YOURSELF A "LONG", THAT'S A SUCKERS GAME.
Crow, can we expect the PPS to slowly drift south until January, when CDEX will have to make a payment in treasury shares?
All Longs know that MP is NOT founder of CDEx. You are right Crow, that is total BOOLSHEET.
Nice way to start... with a well-known lie, but as many have said before, the aim of the advertising is for new, uninformed investors.
I like the new website (although it reminds me of the redesigned Loch Harris website constructed just months before they high-tailed it and skipped town with all their ill-gotten money)
I like the light beam hitting the feature molecule and making it fluorece. That's pretty cool.
I've just never seen carbon atoms with FIVE BONDS before (the five ring structure).
I guess there's no chemists on the CDEX technical staff who would have immediately caught that error.
I'm now waiting for Kidinsight to come back and post that Poteet was the first to discovered the five bond carbon atom while he was working for CDEx.
"Trouble is, the part on Valimed will not impress the target market..pharmacists."
Especially when the websites feature illustration is a molecule containing carbon atoms with five bonds! LOL
Must be the "New Physics" Art used to talk about.
And think about what it would take to design and sell a special IV bag. I don't think CDEx could do it. They'd have to farm it out to a mfgr with sterile production facilities such as Baxter or the like.
Do they have the volume demand and money?
Do they have the new instrument to read the new bags?
This is something that would take time and money to develop and I don't think CDEx has either one.
Crow, Valimed must recognize the signature (spectrum fingerprint) and the concentration (amplitute of spectral peaks of interest).
Standard cuvettes hold 1 ml of liquid (1 cubic centimeter) and the incident beam traverses through 1 cm of solution. The distance the beam travels through the solution must be well known and consistent in order to accurately measure concentration.
Concentration cannot be measured without a very special IV bag with not just a "built-in window", but a built-in cuvette where the incident beam traverses the same distance as in the cuvettes used to create the standards.
Then there's the problem of designing a optically isolated chamber so Valimed can to read the IV bag without interference... but that's a story for another day. LOL
Valimed- an additional QA aid for compounded, high-risk, solutions for IV meds- mainly for children.
Niche City... as we've always stated.
LOL, this sounds so familiar!!
"DUE to a large number of requests we ask that your lodging facility give us a 5 to 7 day advanced notice so we can schedule the scan for the day before or the day of your arrival in the Metro Phoenix area."
Too funny!! Another company shill like the solar pump scam?
How many people actually believe this? I think most Longs know that based on Loch/CDEx experience, the 10K is the only information to rely on.
CDEX started the meth gun sales in July was a reported back log of orders. How many have they reported sold after one month?
100 units sold at $4K each is probably about $200K in profits. So what is the monthly CDEx burn rate, how long will it take to sell 100 units, and and how much is that upcoming PIPE payment going to be?
Good luck to the honest shareholders.
OT: DaimondDave, what's happening with your QB? Sports writers here in LA are saying that if GB trades him to the Vikings or Bears, GB fans will disown him?
Is that true?
More Myth Gun delays?? Didn't CDEx announced that "pre-marketing" orders were being taken back in June and that the formal marketing and shipment would begin in July?
Didn't Capnmike count down the days?
So they've only sold one and the gun is yet to be finalized?
One sale reminds me of the Loch Harris Solar Water Pump.
They were going to sell a thousand to Mexico, but only managed to sell one pump to a texas rancher that was reimbursed for the cash sale with company stock.
In this case, they generated one sale and talked about how the new mould can produced 500,000 pieces.
Talk about carrots. LOL
"Tippecanoe and Spectrum Labs.."
"Tippecanoe and Tyler Too"
As I posted, I never said "on the CDEX trail".
Thank you for verifying that for me WMFT.
"Diddy are full of it. Diddy procalimed that ASD was on the CDEX trail a month after he posted it in January 2005, making it February,,,, 14 MONTHS BEFORE ASD FILED! How would he know that? ASD wouldn't tell anyone so unless you dweebs have an in or an out,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, HOW?"
On the trail? No, I never said that.
I had a telecon with ASD's directory of technology in January 2005 and posted some of that content on RB.
The topics I posted were UV Fluorescence vs. IR Reflectance, solids vs. liquids, the bidding war between Cardinal and McKesson for ASD tech and stuff like that.
Most importantly, CDEx became aware of the patented ASD technology as of that date... at the latest.
And obviously law suits don't happen overnight. I'm quite sure there were lines of communication between CDEX and ASD before the suit was filed, in this case 14 months after the fact.
WMFT, you can email my response back to the rumor mill boyz- Rio and Jammon.
"For all you know, DIDDY has CDEX stock."
Are you kidding!! Once CDEX publicly announced that Valimed can identify contamination in Heparin I backed-up the truck and loaded it full of CEXI.
WOW!! I don't know how they do it. I don't understand the science.
I guess Art was right, it's a "New Physics".
CDEX better not be lying or be intentionally misleading on this one!
"I decided to stop on yours and go through some of my daily research routine before coming back to this page."
Good morning Capnmike, thank you for letting me know that you haven't had time to get to my questions yet. I'll look forward to reading your response when you return.
I'd also like to discuss your following question:
"Are you actually suggesting the introduction of a contaminant or foreign substance into a molecular mixture that has been "signatured" by CDEX would NOT significantly alter the spectrum and it could POSSIBLY TRIGGER A "VALIDATED" response for a pharmacy user??!!!"
"molecular mixture" LOL!!
Can we narrow that down to compounded, IV solutions?
More questions for Capnmike. Capnmike, you asked me the following question as if you were in disbelief:
"Are you actually suggesting the introduction of a non-fluorescing contaminant in, say, Heparin 5 units-ml NS, would result in something other than a NOT VALIDATED alert from ValiMed??!!"
Capnmike, you question (expressed so dramamtically as if I was suggesting the impossible) begs the following question in return:
Will a sample containing a non-fluorescing contaminant always result in a NOT VALIDATED alert fron Valimed?
YES or NO?
If the answer is "NO" why do you respond to me in such a dramatic fashion?
If the answer is "YES", then will a non-fluorescing contaminant which causes NON-STERILITY always result in a NOT VALIDATED alert from Valimed?
Thank you for your response. I want to learn.
"Why did he get his panties in a wad over what started as my reply to JEN who had asked why they do not use VALIMED to ID the contaminant in Heparin..."
Perhaps we hit upon a subject which he "anticipated" would be the topic of a PR the very next day. Wasn't he once involved with publishing a PR a tad bit early?
In any case, day's PR header reads:
CDEX Announces the Addition of Heparin Signatures to ValiMed(TM) to Address Medication Errors and Contamination
"To address"
Addressing medication errors and contamination does not mean the problem has been solved. As usual, if Valimed has definitively solved the Heparin contamination issue with no uncertainty I believe they would make that very, very clear.
Instead, it appears to me that "contamination" has been weaved in as a buzz word like sterility was in the past.
But I could be wrong, if so, I hope Capnmike will explain it to me in a reasonable way and without simply pasting references to patent claims.
They can't Crow. They don't need to know the ID of a contaminant for it to cause a signature mismatch.
Can there be a contaminant that Valimed doesn't detect?
Can Valimed detect contamination resulting in non-sterility?
If they can, why don't they STRONGLY ADVERTISE IT?
Capnmike, can Valimed detect non-sterility from a non-fluorescing contaminant?
From a fluoresing contaminant?
If you are suggesting Valimed can detct non-sterility, I WILL LOAD UP THE TRUCK RIGHT NOW!!!
Well... tommorrow, the market is closed already.
"Are you actually suggesting the introduction of a fluorescing contaminant in Heparin 5 units-ml NS would result in something other than a NOT VALIDATED alert from ValiMed??!!"
Valimed can only identify a substance with a know signature, therefore it cannot identify a contaminant if there is no signature for that contaminant.
The best that Valimed can do is reject a contaminated sample if the contaminants flourescent energy alters the reading enough to cause a mismatch with the drugs known signature.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=29103590
"Are you actually suggesting the introduction of a non-fluorescing contaminant in, say, Heparin 5 units-ml NS, would result in something other than a NOT VALIDATED alert from ValiMed??!!"
I do not believe that Valimed can detect the presence of a contaminant if:
1) the contaminant does not flouresce and
2) the contaminant does not interfere with the chemical species of interest, thereby altering its spectral fingerprint and
3) The sole method of matching a spectral fingerprint is by capture of its fluorescent energy.
As I said Cap, I'll be happy to reply if you do so also in a meaningful way.
GOOD GRIEF INDEED Capnmike! Please re-read and understand my post, then if you have any further questions I'll respond.
Timely PR today.
I wonder if Mr. Shriver finally had the opportunity to test a sample of the tainted Chinese Heparin which he reportedly was unable to obtain in the past?
"In the post mtg visit I asked Shriver about the Heparin problem .
I wanted to know if V'med could indicate a rejection of any of our Heparin signatures in the presence of the recently discovered dangerous contaminant. He said he needed a sample of the contaminant to explore our existing signatures or generate a new one... but despite his requests of the CDC and the (german)mgf.. he was refused !
I find that refusal very puzzling !"
He needed a sample of the contaminant... interesting.
Yes Crow, your reasoning is sound. You are basically saying what I said.
Valimed can only identify a substance with a know signature, therefore it cannot identify a contaminant if there is no signature for that contaminant*.
The best that Valimed can do is reject a contaminated sample if the contaminants flourescent energy alters the reading enough to cause a mismatch with the drugs known signature.
If a particular contaminant does not flouresce, Valimed is useless against detecting that contamination.
* UVF cannot identify (deduce the structure of) a unknown chemical compound by a fluorescent signature alone.
"Will it reject a contaminated sample...VERY UNCERTAIN."
Exactly.
"The contaminent in heparin is not signatured...nor is any other contaminent. VALIMED WILL DETECT NOTHING THAT is not signatured."
Crow, I brought this point up a couple years ago with kidinsight.
If a contaminant interfers with the Heparin signature, Valimed should reject the sample. The problem of course is the uncertainty of whether a contaminant will or will not interfer and the possibility of a false validation.
tray = yart eom
I was able to decipher bits and pieces- mostly incoherent babble though.
The truth will set you free Loto.
It came from a known and documented forger of emails that doesn't have the sense to write a valid date.
BTW, no one even thanked me for my DD about ASD.
Kill the messenger.
Help me out here WMFT, which one of these best describes your definition of "spreading" after I posted a link one time:
spread (sprd)
v. spread, spread·ing, spreads
v.tr.
1. To open to a fuller extent or width; stretch: spread out the tablecloth; a bird spreading its wings.
2. To make wider the gap between; move farther apart: spread her fingers.
3.
a. To distribute over a surface in a layer: spread varnish on the steps.
b. To cover with a layer: spread a cracker with butter.
4.
a. To distribute widely: The tornado spread destruction.
b. To make a wide or extensive arrangement of: We spread the bicycle parts out on the floor.
c. To exhibit or display the full extent of: the scene that was spread before us.
5. To cause to become widely seen or known; scatter or disseminate: spread the news; spread the beam of the flashlight.
6.
a. To prepare (a table) for eating; set.
b. To arrange (food or a meal) on a table.
7. To flatten (a rivet end, for example) by pounding.
Sorry Loto, I never wrote an email, that was forged by one of your buddies.
How about this one. I was the one that gave the heads-up to Kidinsight (or was it Ontheedge) about ASD and their patents. That was on the RB board.
In fact, I even published a request for Kidinsight to ask MP about it and get back to us.
He never did, but I'll bet (sorry Scared) that MP was informed about the situation at that time? Whata ya think?
That was over a year before the infringement law suit was announced.
WMFT, just in case you're not deliberating lying I'll say that I can't stand "Rosie".
Now you know the truth.
And now readers will know that you're deliberating lying if you ever write that statement again.
Besides WMFT, it's so silly, it makes you look immature, and and I could really care less. Really.
Sorry you have a thing for me big guy! LOL
Moonie is fantasizing about a cabal so much that he's starting to believe what he writes.
Now he has a following.
All two of them.
LOL!! Sounds like Edgy is back to me!
I wonder why some people don't want any of the history of CDEx to be written?
"...I guess it boils down to somebody still offering a supply of shares into the market which is keeping the bid down. What other reason could there be for shareholders selling this stock which according to some has monster potential to hit 5.00 or 10.00 pps in the near future???"
Geez.... when did I hear that one before?
Unbelieveable.
BOHICA