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.
LOL! Capnmike, when Brian Jenkins said "...if there is successful translation of the CDEX chemical detection technology into the field" do you think he was referring to the land mine detector test he had just witnessed or Valimed?
You posted:
"In my considered opinion, based upon research and first hand observation and interviews at the ASHP event, CDEX technology has successfully been translated into the field, with much more to come. I would think the University of Michigan, University of Utah/Huntsman, University of Maryland, Henry Ford Hospital, etc etc, would all agree that CDEX technology has indeed been implemented successfully "in the field."
Your "considered opinion"? LOL You can't be serious. You are referring to Valimed right? The bench-top fluorimeter used in a hospital lab. I think most people would agree that that is not exactly what Jenkins had in mind when he was commenting on land mine/illegal drug detection and used the phrase "in the field".
Good gracious Capnmike, you're too easy to please! LOL
Loch/CDEX advertised a portable, trace explosive detector designed for field use which could operate at a two meter stand-off distance in real time. It required an accuracy of no more than 1/1000 false negatives or 99.9%.
While the meth gun won't even come close to meeting those specs, it will at least be a better indicator of the successful "translation to the field" than Valimed.
Paige, I should have said "sometimes misdirected" and it has nothing to do with the success or failure of CDEx.
Hi Paige, not you, you have a very open mind. Misdirected at times, but nevertheless open! LOL
About emerging technologies, in this case nanotechnology, but keep an open mind:
http://www.nanotechnology.com/papers/index.php?a=download&id=WP43459B74AA901
Crow,
"Valimed MIGHT have a version that will test a pill.. but it will have to be built different from the one they are trying to sell now. And the dang pill has to be crushed and probably liquified if they are gonna use UV..
The DEMO you saw was faked.. if you know the name of the demo operator.. call him up and cuss him out.."
"Fake" as in being a trade show curiosity, but never becoming a viable product? As you said earlier, trade show demos are always well rehearsed. Even if the demo was real, I'm sure CDEX chose a pill that tests readily (i.e., no UV opaque coating/ strong fluorescence) to wow the audience or at least Capnmike.
Unfortunately, the majority of pills and capsules cannot be tested using UV IMO. At lease not a high enough percentage to make a UVF-based counterfeit drug detector worthwhile, especially when there is already something out there which does the job better.
That's exactly why ASD choose Vis/NIR. I was told by ASD's Brian Curtiss, VP- Technology/Co-founder that they investigated UVF but chose Vis/NIR due to the advantages for testing solid dosage form medications.
Vis/NIR is superior for solids. UVF is superior for liquids. It's that simple to understand.
Valimed uses UVF and is specifically designed for liquids. Despite all the buzz about counterfeit drugs (90% being solids) CDEx focused their efforts on a very narrow market segment for high-risk, compounded, IV medications.
If they had any intention whatsoever to use Valimed to test solids I don't think they would have given exclusive marketing rights to a company that specializes in devices used for the administering of liquid medications.
The pill demo was only a carrot IMO, nothing more. I don't expect to see CDEx develop a UVF-based instrument for testing solid dosage form drugs any time soon despite WMFT claiming to have seen a "pill demo".
Geezzz... Paige, can you give it to me in a nut shell?
"Who said you put it in a cuvette that is designed for liquids?"
Baxa
CDEx, now only .25 ml instead of 1.0 ml
Have you heard anything other than this?
OK WMFT, I can understand it being calibrated for sensitivity level, but that's not what I was discussing in my post.
I see no way the meth gun can read a concentration level. As a handheld device, it can detect the presence of a substance if that substances fluorescent intensity is above the calibrated sensitivity threshold, but it cannot determine the concentration.
It is qualitative not quantatative.
I've talked with two companies both manufacturing handheld, stand-off, trace detection devices and both have told me it can't be done. One said it can be attempted with special attachments to the front of the device, but even then the accuracy is no where near that of a bench-top equivalent and it's a hassle to calibrate.
That's why I was puzzled by Poteet's remark about detecting low levels that would not hold up as evidence or warrant a police search.
My understanding is that it either detects a presence or it does not.
Red light, green light.
Prettier Pills- New FDA pill coating approved.
[Excerpt]
"The pigments are made by coating the mineral mica with either titanium dioxide or iron oxide _ or both. The FDA approved using the two separate combinations to color contact lenses in 2002."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13960366/
Not all drugs fluoresce.
Not all pills and capsules can be penetrated by UV.
Monsoonman claims to have observed a demo where a pill was validated whole withouy crushing.
Was it a real test or a staged demo?
How many uncoated pills can be tested that way? The exception rather than the rule?
~out
Yes Paige, that's what it says. Tamiflu is available as a capsule and also in a powder form which is mixed with water before drinking.
Now here's the interesting information. The capsule dosage contains Tamiflu in the salt form which is soluble in water, while the oral suspension contains Tamiflu in the base form (free-base for you party animals! LOL) which does not dissolve in water.
If Griffin tested real Tamiflu in a capsule containing the water soluble salt two things may have happen. The salts may not have fully dissolved in which case the low strength may have triggered a "not validated", or the concentration of the dissolved salts may have stratified also causing a "not validated" result.
In either case Griffin would have needed to shake-up the cuvette some more.
Also did you read this:?
"The capsule shell contains gelatin, titanium dioxide, yellow iron oxide, black iron oxide, and red iron oxide."
The contents of the capsule material makes it completely opaque to UV and the contents must be removed for testing.
CDEX staff have repeatedly claimed that Valimed can test solids, but that doesn't necessarily mean in their original solid dosage form. A powder is still a solid. And as Xeno has obviously pointed out, the new .25 cc cuvettes can hardly fit a solid dosage form of any kind. IMO.
Valimed is designed for liquids- PERIOD!
Maybe someone can come up with a new conspiracy theory linking CDEx and Bioprogress with solid dosage coatings for the pharma industry.
http://www.businessweekly.co.uk/directory/profile.asp?company_id=159
Paige, can you tell us if INET's recollection of the Tamiflu validation demonstration at the SHM was accurate?
By: inet64
07 Aug 2006, 01:59 PM EDT
Msg. 29160 of 29188
(This msg. is a reply to 29156 by pookie89014.)
Jump to msg. #
pookie I recall at the shareholder's meeting before Jim Griffin could validate the tamiflu medication he had to dissolve it in a saline solution. I recall he had to reshake it up before it would validate.
I am leaning towards it being in capsule form,but not sure.
If so why wouldn't it read just the powder emptied into the cuvette
Perhaps that is the difference between the ValiMed and the Tamiflu validator.
If they were the same why wouldn't the valiMed unit be a carry around lap top-like case like the Tamiflu.perhaps that is the difference,or maybe the capabilities of multiple validating causing the difference.
Any one who attended feel free to correct or criticize me on this post,since many see things differently at times.
WMFT, what product are you referring to in this statement:
"My discussions with actual users of the tech, the hands on professionals in the field, told me that calibration is possible to make it less sensitive."
Valimed or the meth gun?
Paige, as I recall, you were at the SHM weren't you?
"As for items purchased from secondhand stores, Poteet said the gun could possibly detect trace amounts of drugs used by a previous owner, but those amounts probably wouldn't be enough to warrant police suspicion."
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9596_22-6099364.html
My understanding is that the meth gun gives a red light/green light indication for the presence of meth. There is no way to calibrate the gun to give concentration levels. That would require standardized stand-off distances, background noise, drug purity... etc. These are the variables which must remain constant and can only be controlled in a pristine Valimed-like chamber. They cannot be controlled by holding a handheld device under varible conditions. NO WAY in my opinion.
So what is Poteet saying:
but those amounts probably wouldn't be enough to warrant police suspicion."
WMFT, please read the entire thread before complaining that a post is OT.
With meth a larger problem than cocaine and heroin combined, how long will it be before trace detection of meth falls under the same legal defense strategies as cocaine busts?
Independent reports show that 80-90% of all U.S. paper currency has detectable amounts (1-9 nanograms) of cocaine.
"It is yet another chapter in just two frequently recurring problems with the ongoing War On Drugs which – like most prohibition efforts – has many. First, the prohibition laws become so strict that it becomes possible for almost anybody to be arrested. You don’t have to be an actual offendor to appear on the police radar – you can just get caught up in the zero-tolerance efforts.
Second, it results in many expensive gadgets that wind up being virtually worthless. These meth guns are expected to cost $1,500 a pop. One of the proposed uses would be in cleaning up meth labs – for which it may prove valuable. For conviction, however, we’ve already seen the cocaine-on-the-money data being cited in court cases. It won’t be long before we’re able to prove that one could have picked up trace amounts of meth anywhere – it doesn’t necessarily imply use or dealing."
http://www.art-machine.org/blog/about/858/dont-take-meth-guns-to-town
I believe the meth gun will be more useful as an inspection tool for lab clean-up before it is successfully used to gather evidence for conviction. That appears to be the concensus among those interviewed including Dr. Poteet and Sgt. Garcia.
"Because the meth gun's technology has never been used at crime scenes before, it will have to face court challenges to its admissibility, said Tucson Police Sgt. Mark Garcia, who works in the department's narcotics unit. Like the radar gun, the meth gun will probably have to go through lengthy use in the field.
"Something like that will have to go through all the legal hurdles of acceptance," Garcia said.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/138816
Butterfly, how bad do the MM's want shares with a volume under 6K and a two cent spread?
Hmmmm.....
"It is yet another chapter in just two frequently recurring problems with the ongoing War On Drugs which – like most prohibition efforts – has many. First, the prohibition laws become so strict that it becomes possible for almost anybody to be arrested. You don’t have to be an actual offendor to appear on the police radar – you can just get caught up in the zero-tolerance efforts.
Second, it results in many expensive gadgets that wind up being virtually worthless. These meth guns are expected to cost $1,500 a pop. One of the proposed uses would be in cleaning up meth labs – for which it may prove valuable. For conviction, however, we’ve already seen the cocaine-on-the-money data being cited in court cases. It won’t be long before we’re able to prove that one could have picked up trace amounts of meth anywhere – it doesn’t necessarily imply use or dealing."
http://www.art-machine.org/blog/about/858/dont-take-meth-guns-to-town
I wonder if this may one day become an issue with meth:
Excerpt
"...a federal trial judge said the mere presence of such cocaine traces doesn't give officials the necessary "probable cause" to launch an extensive search for drugs or to confiscate the cash."
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/cocaine/cocaine_media3.shtml
"Old scams never die. They just get new names and snare fresh victims."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2005-11-10-pink-sheet-cover-usat_x.htm
High C, some facts for you.
- As of the last 10Q, CDEx was 180K in the red and stated that they'd be out of working capital by the end of June '06.
- CDEx needs a reported 3 million for the next 18 months to execute their business plan
- No public news on Valimed sales or funding since the last 10Q. (I'm disregarding the meth gun PR that claims Valimed is in 20 hospitals until it is offcially reported. Remember the mistake made in the Waterville report?)
- CDEx begins touting the meth gun (as reported on the news).
- Griffin publicly solicits PP investors thru paid advertising.
- CDEx stock promoters suddenly appear and inundate the message boards with any news with the word "meth" in it. (same tactics as used with land mines and counterfeit drugs)
Geez High C, connect the dots. Ya want me to number them for ya? LOL
CDEx is touting the meth gun to promote the sale of PP shares.
They need the PP money to survive. They need to sale PP shares. Advertisement produces sales.
I'm not trying to spin it negative, it's just the facts.
End of story.
tout
Definition
Aggressively promote a particular security. Usually done by someone with a vested interest in seeing the stock's price rise, such as a company employee, public relations firm, analyst, or large shareholder. Illegal in certain circumstances.
http://www.investorwords.com/5009/tout.html
tout (tout)
v. tout·ed, tout·ing, touts
v.intr.
1. To solicit customers, votes, or patronage, especially in a brazen way.
2. To obtain and deal in information on racehorses.
v.tr.
1. To solicit or importune: street vendors who were touting pedestrians.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tout
v., tout·ed, tout·ing, touts.
v.intr.
To solicit customers, votes, or patronage, especially in a brazen way.
http://www.answers.com/topic/tout
tout
n 1: (British) someone who buys tickets to an event in order to
resell them at a profit [syn: ticket tout]
2: someone who advertises for customers in an especially brazen
Xeno, any comments on this post:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12472402
deleted
One more comment on your post High C:
"Touting does not mean selling, products. it is telling one that products are being developed ,some with hope, none guaranteed."
High C, you are leading me to believe that you may not have a firm grasp on the definition of the word "tout". Touting is not "telling one that products are under development".
Touting in this content means praising or highly recommending something for the purpose of soliciting business. Look it up.
That's exactly what Loch Harris did and that's exactly what CDEX has done to market 21 million dollars worth of PP shares.
Recently, even the news media has published that CDEX IS TOUTING THE METH GUN. Again, that means that CDEx is praising it through PR advertisements for the purpose of soliciting business.
And what kind of business are they attempting to solicit? The President and CEO of CDEx, Jim Griffin has publicly announced that CDEx is soliciting PP investor business.
YES, no secret and undeniable. Review the paid video/audio advertisements featuring Jim Griffin. CDEX is touting the meth gun to solicit PP investors.
Message board stock promoters are touting the meth gun relentlessly. Any connection there? LOL
"I personally do not recall any products before ValiMed that were marketed, set up for testing by The gov't,sure,marketed, NO"
High C, OK I believe you. I believe you forgot Malcolm Philips proudly announced that the marketing of the PS3 would begin in Janurary, 2003.
I believe you forgot the advertisement on the CDEx website with the picture of the mocked-up hair dryer and the silly product specifications which clearly illustrated to me that they never actually had a product to sell in the first place- later confirmed!
I believe that you forgot all the message board buzz about the shiny colored brochures that were handed out at the SHM.
Sure you don't remember any of that? ;)
Paige, clean-up is becoming a big issue. Not only do lab sites need to be cleared for meth residue, they need to be cleared for the many solvents and other dangerous precursors used in cooking meth that have adsorbed onto surfaces.
If the CDEX meth gun can check a lab site for all of the possible hazardous residual chemicals with certified test results it would be a extremely useful tool IMO.
If it can only check for meth then not so good if other test methods need to be used in conjunction.
As you know, there are many other instruments that can check for all the known hazards, albeit, they may not all check in open air and/or they may not check for trace.
If the meth gun can check for everything for a mere 10K, it would have a clear advantage in a rapidly developing market IMO. However, if the meth gun falls into the same category as existing instruments on the market where it can do some thing better than others, others can do things better than it and no instrument can do it all, then we'll just have to wait and see where it finds its niche and market share.
I believe that is a very reasonable assessment.
Since we still don't know a lot about the meth gun (except for some mock-up photographs of Poteet and others pointing a prototype at objects) we'll have to patiently wait and see what facts unfold.
Imaginative speculation, grandstanding and touting does not produce facts.
WOW SAND!! That alone is damning evidence for FRAUD against all the Loch Harris staff involved in that apparent false and misleading public demonstration!!!
And where are these people today? Do some still work or consult for the new Loch Harris, CDEX? I believe some do.
Are other LH perps sitting on the side lines with millions of converted LH shares still profiting and waiting for a CDEx pump-n-dump? I believe they are.
Did some of the accomplices remaining in the public eye after the "reorganization" of Loch Harris help cover up damaging evidence against the perps? I believe they did.
I believe this is why so many investors remain wary of investing in CDEx until there is sound evidence of successful product and not just the same dramatic speculation, touting PR's and message board stock promoter hype.
Of course this is only my opinion, others may vary, and of course, those of paid stock promoters and consultants most assuredly do.
High C,
" ...why would any company
put out information when they know clowns like you will go out of their way to prove to everyone that said company is being labled as unreliable by its shareholders."
You've got to be kidding! LOL
Only a scam company would be worrying about a few "clowns" on an investment message board instead of their loyal shareholders, especially if the information is NOT the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Then they SHOULD worry about someone exposing THE ACTUAL TRUTH.
I'm very impressed with you Sanddollar, your posts are influencing the corporate decisions of a penny stock company!! LOL
I wonder why?
"Cdex did not give me a bunch of positive BS to get my money for scamming purposes as Loch did."
Hich C, did you know that there are still penny stock promoters advertsing CDEx on these message boards today that once were actively involved in promoting Loch Harris- the company you consider a scam?
High C, it was very unfortunate for anyone who's investment decisions were influenced by their promotional skills since their forecasts, predictions, opinions and connect-the-dots innuendos were 100% dead wrong.
Sanddollar,
I was just browsing thru some old Loch Harris PR's and it amazed me how much of a scam it was. A very well orchestrated team effort from all the Loch Harris crew.
Bravo.
I consider it a lesson well learned and can only smile knowing that "what comes around goes around".
;)
Interesting new acronym for LIDAR:
[i}"Measures commented that the radiation returning from a target to the photo-detection system, which is often mounted adjacent to the laser, provides information about the target, including its range. He expanded the acronym LIDAR (originally meaning Light Detection and Ranging) to mean Laser Identification, Detection, Analysis, and Ranging."
http://www.spie.org/web/oer/november/nov97/tebo.html
Maybe the MM's were just trying to get some play.
More grant money available for the meth gun?
TITLE: RELIABLE PEROXIDE-BASED EXPLOSIVES DETECTION WITH LOW FALSE ALARM RATE
TECHNOLOGY AREAS:Explosives detection, transportation security.
OBJECTIVE: Develop or modify a reliable, easy to use, portable device for detecting trace amounts of peroxide-based explosives from particulates which has superior capabilities to any existing equipment.
DESCRIPTION: There is a growing need for the ability to detect trace amounts of peroxide-based explosives on individuals traveling by means of public transportation. Peroxide-based materials are of interest because they are generally known to be used for homemade explosives (HME). This type of explosive, while not complex, is highly dangerous because the components are easily obtainable; typical peroxide-based HMEs are made from peroxide and sugar.
The main locations for using such detection devices will be airports, train stations, bus depots, or other areas where passengers are required to purchase a ticket for transportation (although the source for sampling should not be limited to tickets).
Trace detection technologies are being used at various airports but the devices are not hand-held and are used to detect other types of explosives. We are seeking to build on research and development already being performed to incorporate portability of trace detection devices that can detect peroxide-based explosives. A desired capability includes a decreased dependence on use of a substrate (i.e. tickets).
PHASE I: Evaluate technologies to detect trace amounts of peroxide-based explosives. Develop a design that will build on those technologies that will include portability and novel ways for sample collection of peroxide-based explosives. Present prototype design and proof of feasibility.
PHASE II: Develop and fabricate the prototype system and run laboratory and field testing, including testing to determine and assess the false alarm rate.
PHASE III - COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS:Work with commercial entities to demonstrate manufacturability of demonstrated system which would have commercial and military application and identify commercial applications of underlying technologies for other than stated purposes.
REFERENCES:
Hannum, D. and J. Parmeter, "Survey of Commercially Available Explosives Detection Technologies and Equipment," Office of Science and Technology, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, National Law Enforcement and Correction Technology Center Report, September 1998, NCJ 171133.
2) Pursuit Management Task Force Report, September 1998,
Moore, D. "Instrumentation for Trace Detection of High Explosives." American Institute of Physics 2004: vol. 75 no. 8, 2499-2512.
National Research Council of the National Academies. Containing the Threat from Illegal Bombs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003.
National Research Council of the National Academies. Existing and Potential Standoff Explosives Detection Techniques. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003.
National Research Council of the National Academies. Opportunities to Improve Airport Passenger Screening with Mass Spectrometry. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003.
KEYWORDS:explosives, detection, peroxide-based
TECHNICAL POINT OF CONTACT:Mr. Trent DePersia, trent.depersia@dhs.gov, 202.254.6152
http://www.hsarpasbir.com/SolicitationDownload.asp#2
Rodney Boone, Mark Baker, Henry Blair- Karma! :)
ELF Racks Up Perfect Score for GAO Says Loch/ChemTech
Business Wire, Jan 23, 2000
AUSTIN, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 24, 2000
The ELF landmine detector made a perfect score last Friday in private tests conducted at the request of Government Accounting Office representatives at the Tucson, Ariz.-based laboratory of Chemical Detection Technology, Inc. (ChemTech), a subsidiary of Loch Harris, Inc. (OTCBB: LOCH), according to Rodney Boone, Loch Harris CEO.
The two-meter bench tests for the ELF, which stands for Eliminate Landmines Forever, were staged for three representatives from the National Security and International Affairs division of the GAO, which is charged with auditing the current status of United States mine detection technology.
Boone said the GAO findings are expected to be presented to Congress in a written report by the end of March.
Dr. Henry Blair, renowned Tucson physicist who developed the ELF, said, &uot;We raised the bar of difficulty substantially today for ELF by placing all explosives samples in sealed, airtight plastic containers that were representative of techniques used by landmine manufacturers.&uot;
The GAO representatives took part in the test by personally selecting and monitoring the reshuffling of test beds while Dr. Wade Poteet, ChemTech's co-developer and operator, was removed from the test area.
The ELF went a perfect 16 for 16, accurately locating and identifying each separate buried explosive sample at a distance of two meters.
&uot;The distance and real-time readouts seemed to surprise our guests,&uot; said Blair. &uot;But,&uot; he promised, &uot;the ELF will do more.&uot;
Dr. Blair is confident that his ELF will perform just as perfectly at 30-meter distances in Croatian field tests in the near future.
Boone said tests in Croatia, which had been expected this month, had been delayed partly by extreme weather conditions and partly by the country's recent elections. &uot;Croatia's Rudjer Boskovic Institute has indicated that a mid-February date is likely for controlled laboratory tests, to be followed shortly afterward by the field tests.&uot;
Yet another conspiracy theory:
By Monsoonman
...something many others and myself are assuming, that you possess insiders knowledge of this suit and know that cdex can put the legal hammer down on asd and knock them out of the park, but Mr. Phillips and company would rather see the lawsuit linger on for their own selfish reasons.
Monsoonman "and many others" believe that insiders are posting on CDEx investment message boards?
That thought had never occurred to me! LOL
LOL!! You do try hard Capnmike, but don't try to force a square peg into a round hole. Just relax, don't get excited and let's see what we will see.
Patent issues to consider:
8. Unless you file your U.S. patent application within one year after you first offer your invention for sale or publicly demonstrate the invention, you lose the right to obtain a patent. In most other countries, though, the right to obtain a patent is lost unless the application is filed no later than the date of first sale or publication.
ELF/EM-1???
10. If you threaten to sue a competitor for infringing your patents, the competitor can initiate a lawsuit against you seeking a "declaratory judgement" that your patent is invalid or not infringed. The competitor may thus potentially obtain a tactical advantage, for example by bringing the suit in a local or other more favorable court of its own choosing. But a non-threatening offer to license your patent to an infringing competitor will not generally support such a preemptive lawsuit.
More here:
http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=12313
Beginning August 1, 2006,
the FirstDefender is available through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program (CEDAP). Designed to complement DHS grant programs such as the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), CEDAP assists state and local communities in the acquisition of equipment to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorist attacks. CEDAP is a direct assistance program which enables DHS Office of Grants and Training (G&T) to provide equipment and technical assistance directly to selected jurisdictions.
http://www.ahuracorp.com/press/pr_20060729.html
Well Paige, looks like those grant programs are becoming available just like you said.
Maybe CDEx can get on board next year in 2007 if they are successful in getting the meth gun to market.
Ya never know, stranger things have happen.
Technology Pioneers are companies that have been identified as developing and applying highly transformational and innovative technologies in the areas of energy, biotechnology and health, and information technology. This year’s class of companies has been selected due to the cutting-edge work undertaken by the organizations, as well as the potential long-term impact of the organization’s efforts on business and society.
http://www.ahuracorp.com/press/pr_20060729.html
Well Crow...
"Seems to me that such an infusion of cash would require a PR or something as a material event. Absent such, it would follow that the negative position is actually getting worse as day to day expenses accumulate.
Whatever, the question requires more than just speculation here on the boards. CDEX needs to speak."
CDEx has gone into a PR frenzy hyping the meth gun. CDEx insiders, once silent, have suddenly started advertising relentlessly about the meth gun. They're talking, but not saying what investors want to hear.
But what are the most obvious and important issues?
Funding and Valimed sales.
Now is not the time to dangle more carrots.