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.
That's your interpretation, it does not say that
I agree, paying attention to details is always helpful.
These are the relevant facts.
-PCT's Hydrolyte does not appear on list P for C. auris
-PCT's Hydrolyte does appear on list K for C. Diff.
This is the CDC wording
PCT's Hydrolyte does not appear on list P yet, perhaps it is being worked on? BUT it does appear on list K, which is also recommended for usage against C. Auris.
https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/candida-auris/c-auris-infection-control.html
False narratives built upon more false narratives. Care to talk about that facts? Why is that so hard to do?
"Schills"? Is anyone who dares to be optimistic about the company a "schill"? Anyone who dares to challenge the blatant falsehoods? How is this label defined? And I noticed they are no longer "paid schills"? Why the change in label? Just trying to keep up with this yet to be defined, seemingly nebulous label. And yes... I know... I apparently have earned the label. For what? Kind of funny if you ask me, since I don't have any communication with the company. I simply do my best to contribute relevant facts and honest discussion.
Where is the proof that the PCT podcast host has ever posted on this board? That would be pretty foolish of him to do so. I have shared my basis for believing this to be false, and I have yet to see any proof that he has. If there is proof though, lets see it?
Changing the topic now?
I already said yesterday that I wouldn't have said it that way. And I have said many times I have no interest in defending statements made by PCT.
My only point is that PCT was engaged in the UK, and I was refuting the suggestion that it was all hype and BS, along with a made up story about someone visiting Lockheed Martin.
The NHS timeline in the meeting notes is proof that PCT was indeed engaged with testing and did deliver a machine to the UK. Unless of course the NHS meeting notes are lies too?
Ok then... explain to me how the NHS meeting notes from the Council of Governors meeting talks about PCT Health, the Annihilyzer and the timeline of events, matching what PCT was telling investors about engagement and testing. (pg 46-47 in linked document)
https://www.nth.nhs.uk/content/uploads/2022/05/Council-of-Governors-papers-5-May-22-FINAL.pdf
Are they in on the ruse too? That would be fascinating if true.
I am not interested in arguing about what was said or we were led to believe. I agree that things were said that shouldn't have been. But there are many who are now saying the whole thing was made up/pretend. It wasn't. As for the financial details, I have never said anything about them, as I agree it needed clarification. It sounds to me like we agree on many things here. PCT was engaged with the UK partners. That is my only point that I will continue to defend, because it is completely the truth. All the other stuff falls in the category of unknown and fair questions for me. I don't talk to the company and I have no answers on the profits and ownership questions. But they did have a stake in the partner at one point, that is verified on the documents. Why that changed? I don't know. Why did it all break down? I don't know.
And really... this is a lot of wasted energy over what we can all agree is now a dead end.
Show me where PCT ever said they did own PCT UK. My recollection was that we were told that it was a partner. That's not ownership. And I have never argued with this question (ownership/profit share question). It's a good question (or was... moot point now). We probably will never know what happened behind the scenes. But you can't just say the whole thing was made up BS and disregard the ample third party evidence and facts.
That's very old.... dated 2019. Name on the document is Marty Paris, he has not been with PCT for several years.
PCT's active registration is in the state of Nevada.
It's easy to look back at all of PCT's failures (including UK) and say it's all BS, and they were making it all up. But there are too many third party facts out there supporting that PCT was engaged with the UK. Same with many other things that are now branded as total BS.
I am not defending PCT here. I have always said we need more clarity on ownership, etc. But you can't just say it's all BS. If it was all BS then how did PCT Health (the previous US name for the health division) end up in the NHS Council of Governors meeting notes? How is it that the NHS meeting notes timeline of events starting in 2019 lines up with PCT's general timeline of UK activity? That's only possible if there is truth to PCT being engaged.
It's not all BS. You can call it a lot of things and I will not argue. But the facts support that it was an active engagement.
Who's deflecting..... I answered your question... did you answer mine?
I will wait...
And I am not a shill for anyone. Don't talk to the company at all. But I will defend the facts all day long.
Not sure what your point is in referencing what is a very common statement found in many reports by many companies. If you Google this line -
"our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective.”
You will find something like 62,000 instances showing its a very common part of many filings with many companies, large and small. Either all these companies have scary problems, or it's a relatively meaningless procedural statement.
But really that's not even the point here... I wasn't even talking about filings at all. Most of my effort to verify facts is with third party sources, unrelated to PCT filings.
So what does this common procedural statement have to do with my statement about publicly available facts, usually from third parties, have to do with anything?
Nothing at all... that's what.
We already knew UK was a dead end, has been known for months now.
Nice though to dig at old wounds on a day like today.
I will defend the facts as I always have. That’s not the same as defending the company.
The publicly available facts show that PCT was active in the UK market. Easiest reference point for confirmation is the NHS meeting notes, there’s also other confirmations of activity.
Not sure if I would agree with the “gaining market share” wording. But the activity was real at the time. Not sure what happened since that caused things to go silent. I don’t talk to the company, just go with what is publicly available.
Easy explanation… the referenced PR is from 2021. There’s plenty of things said from 2020 and 2021 as you well know.
Thanks for your kind words.
From looking at his LinkedIn, I wouldn't say he is an "unqualified amateur", he does have a decent amount of corporate experience pre-PCTL.
Looks like mostly sales experience, including Mid-Atlantic Account Manager several years for McAfee, a reasonably large company in the mid 2000's, and winner of the Presidents Club award, usually meaning top sales recognition, I believe.
So some background and experience.
And not sure I agree about the need to have a filing on him, he was introduced as VP of Business Development for 21 C.E. That would not be a C-Level position, I don't believe most companies put VP level positions in filings.
Yeah I saw the same study. Really curious what they are up to here.
How would you like PCT's Tom Kane to make such a denial here if he never has posted here in the first place? Would you like him to create an account just to post a denial?
Fair enough... I guess in this context I see it differently. The context is intended for the company to update shareholders, it's not really intended to be a debate or a probing environment. This format is also quite common, as a way for companies to deliver updates.
I am pretty sure that's entirely false, for multiple reasons. I realize it's a fun narrative though.
But with a little critical thinking and just a tiny bit of research there's many holes in it and zero proof that it's true.
I find it fascinating that there is such an obsession with who is hosting the podcast?
It's kind of a bizarre obsession IMO. I am curious though, why does it matter who is asking the questions?
Podcast tomorrow on O&G
PCT Corp will be posting an oil and gas podcast tomorrow March 16th on our website around 10AM.https://t.co/MBlyjo1vEW
— PCTL (@PCTL_) March 15, 2023
December refinery report is up at Texas RRC
https://www.rrc.texas.gov/media/gajj2td2/2022-december-01-0763.pdf
In December-
328,790 Barrels Manufactured
337,871 Barrels Delivered
Here's November and October to reference
https://www.rrc.texas.gov/media/2clepeqe/2022-november-01-0763.pdf
https://www.rrc.texas.gov/media/eqdmkmeg/2022-october-01-0763.pdf
Not sure what they are up to... but issuing PR's on the newswire is a big change.
New PR
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2023/03/15/2627417/0/en/Rare-Earth-Elements-Collected-from-Wastewater-Utilizing-Cyanobacteria-Now-Patent-Pending.html
Rare Earth Elements Collected from Wastewater Utilizing Cyanobacteria Now Patent Pending
Fully aware, thanks for the reminder. Everyone here should already be fully aware though, since it has been like this for a while now. I only posted about the trade because its only the second time a trade has posted in nearly two years. We are all waiting for the company to deliver.
Looks like we had another small trade, someone picked up 260 shares for .0004
Is it now?
Any facts to support this claim? Have you reviewed the filings? Any intelligent discussion on the topic? I would be happy to have a discussion on the facts here.
I must say I am honored to have such a dedicated fan club following me around haha...
OMG... I had no idea!
Thanks for pointing that out... as if it hasn't been that way since like... forever?
Keep trying though... the schtick is great entertainment while we wait on FINRA for the dividend.
I know there was a plan years ago.... I was more referring to recent years as things fell apart. Solly was unwilling to listen to advice or make any changes to the plan. My memory is admittedly a bit foggy on the details as it's been a few years since I paid attention to it. But the point still stands, what happened there is quite different than the situation here.
I noticed that too.
Davies is now CEO of Metaverse Inc.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-davies-6819b964/
https://www.metaverseincorp.com/
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/DEQI/news/DEQI-Announces-New-Business-Model-and-Name-Change-to-Metaverse-Inc?id=390455
There's quite a few differences between SIAF and here. Biggest one is no Solly here to destroy everything.
Here we have 83% owned by State owned Gansu Salt Chemical.
Here they went completely silent for several years and now have come back with a plan and are working the plan. With Solly there is no plan, and nothing left to plan for. Anyone who tried to help with a plan was ignored. Remember, Solly's ears don't work? Can't remember who said that, one of the many intelligent people who tried to help.
We don't know exactly what they are going to do here, but there are many signs of life that are verifiable. The realized value for shareholders is hard to predict. There are many unknowns. But we know the asset value from previous filings.
They have already made many mistakes and will make more along the way. I tell everyone who is paying attention that great patience is required here. But I believe the patience will be worth the wait.
Recent activity is pointing towards being closer to resolution-
They hired Merrill Lynch for Investment banking recently. Not sure why they would do that unless they needed them for something, perhaps related to dividend distribution?
Jove Therapeutics seems to be one of the new directions for the company. They can't do the funding process without the dividend being complete first.
There are other signs as well. But the point is... this is quite different from SIAF, and I was quite deep and burned badly from Solly, so was very wary coming here too.
Yeah, RD kind of answered this, I agree with his response.
But we really don't know what is actually going to happen here, we are all taking out best guess. It's a very unique situation and we don't really have any precedent to look back on.
Here is a statement from the crowdfunding document that describes the ownership situation-
Yeah I honestly know very little about this stuff.
Whatever the case, we should be getting more details as this plays out. At some point they will have to tell us the value and point of the preferred stock. Not sure if that will come through FINRA or from the company once it is issued.
Yeah that's what I have been trying to figure out. Such a unique case though. Not really seeing anything like it.
Yes, need the value to hit here as that other one is still far off from realizing tangible value.
Close to it, yes. I need it to work out for sure.