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.
"I don't know could this be our Vammp?"
Paige, I think the so-called VAMMP application using UVF has been patented by researchers at Sandia and being licensed for commercial use. They don't call it VAMMP.
I believe the claims of a one meter diameter mirror will be used for applications at large stand-off distances. They're obviously not going to fit a one meter mirror in a compact table top version. LOL
Paige, ASD is not going after one of CDEx's patents. I don't know what has given you that idea. You seem to think that ASD can't go after CDEX until one of their relevant patents is awarded. That's not the case IMO.
ASD believes that Valimed is infringing on one of their patents, it has no bearing on whether CDEX has been awarded a patent or not.
Inet, a very sensible post. eom
ASD's latest patent originally had 80 claims but now has less than 60.
Click on the file wrapper, then the latest claims button:
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_CH/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.getBib/.c/6_0_69/.ce/7_...
"RxSpec® technology is the first real tool to automate the time consuming and labor intensive manual verification process used in virtually every pharmacy. The technology is applicable in all pharmacy environments, including central fill, mail order, retail, and hospital pharmacies,” says Dr. Brian Curtiss, Chief Technology Officer. “While ASD’s current systems have focused on verification of solid dosage pharmaceuticals in high volume pharmacies, ASD has versions of the RxSpec® system in development for a wide range of additional dosage forms, including injectables and IV solutions."
I don't think they're going to do that with NIR-VIS. I understand that ASD had investigated UVF, but since 90% of all prescriptions are pills they choose NIR since it works better than UVF for solids- faster, non-destructive, 100% accurate.
UVF works better for solutions.
lmorovan, with some rewording suggested by the examiner, all but one or two of the claims in application 10/268,678 have been allowed.
lmorovan, why do you say that? Have you read the file wrapper?
No Sir Crow, just an observation is all. No one wants to hear another ridiculous conspiracy theory unless of course it's just for a good laugh.
The more far-fetched the funnier!
I just told it to you in my last post. It's a short story. LOL!
No Umdguy, I'm not implying, theorizing or speculating. I'm simply noting the fact that certain posters that have been strong promoters of Loch/CDEx on this and other investment message boards stopped posting right when the SOL expired.
Do you remember a member of the Raging Bull community that posted under the alias "tbeezer"?
March 26, 2006 went by quietly like any other day. It also happen to mark the two year Statute of Limitations deadline for civil liability suits against Loch Harris' officers and/or directors in accordance with the Nevada Revised Statutes.
Loch Harris was offically dissolved as a Nevada Corporation on March 26, 2004.
On March 26, 2006 some of the resident Loch/CDEx stock promoters which have graced these message boards suddenly vanished.
Go figure.
No doubt UMdguy:
http://www.pharmaceutical.mckesson.com/wt/home.php
Doyourdd, let's see if you can answer this question, why was the stock volume so high on March 13, 2006?
"Analytical is privately held and has about $3 million in annual revenue, according to a recent report by credit bureau"
Didn't Raiderman post several times that ASD is a billion dollar a year company?
I wonder where he's getting his information.
Crow, the Valimed unit as it exists right now obviously cannot monitor an IV bag or metering pump.
" have not conceded that it can monitor a drip "in situ"
on the IV pole.
WHY?? Because the sample has to be placed in a cuvette and put inside the isolation chamber inside Valimed."
If there is a demand for that application, CDEx will have to develop special bags/containers to monitor the liquids, before or after compounding.
The main Valimed unit would have to be remote and (ideally) be capable of monitoring several samples at once. Maybe even wireless remote.
Any signal interference would have to be isolated by design.
That's the positive spin. The negative spin- it will never work! LOL
That's how I see it UMdguy.
Crow, I could be wrong but I don't think NaCl fluoresces.
"Yeah, and that makes it even more difficlt to check an IV after it is compounded."
Yep, definitely more difficult, but not impossible. That's what they calim they are doing. They also claim that their future product which monitors the IV pump will have the capability to validate the individual components before they are mixed into the solution or validate the final IV solution prior to administering.
"I still believe that they either use a standardized mixture from which to make a signature, or check the medicines individually before they are added to the mixtire."
That's what they say, a individual signature is made for each concentration of a drug.
And I don't see why they can't do both, i.e., be able to validate the meds individually before they are mixed and test the completed solution after mixing.
Arloco, I don't believe you've answered my last question! LOL
Crow,
"No wonder it takes a week to make a signature. Mostly trial and error using KNOWN concentrations, I would think."
Not if it obeys Bier's law and there's a linear relationship between the intensity and concentration in the spectral ROI. I would expect some simple solutions to have this behavior.
When there's more than one active component in a solution and they have spectral overlap in the ROI, then that's a different story.
Crow, intensity. EOM
Hmmmm... after re-reading my post I suddenly realized that it still hasn't answered your question! LOL
Who cares what the error rate is if they're buying them? Why do you want to know? Who are you anyway? Are you a shareholder? Are you being paid $5.00 for every reply? Are you part of a chain-gang of basherban? Are you associated with another company that's trying to steal our technology?
WHY ARE YOU HERE?
"Haven't been able to find error rate stats for whatever is in the Valimed library."
There are two types of errors, specificity and concentration.
I believe that the specificity has been reported to be 100% (if I remember reading that correctly). I think telling the unit which signature is to be used prior to the scan contributes to this accuracy.
AFA the accuracy of determining concentration goes, it's not so much about the absolute accuarcy of the unit, but what accuracy is required in the working environment.
I read that one hospital has chosen a 20% range which means that the unit will validate a concentration which lies within +/- 10% of the signatured concentration. The pharmacist felt that would minimize false negatives while not having adverse effects on the patient.
I don't know if that will become standard or if it even applies to all high-risk meds.
Ohhhhh, now I understand, Mott's had some problem with CPOE and Valimed was brought in after.
Thank you for sharing that.
Two unrelated yet fascinating events. :)
doyourdd, couldn't find the article about Mott's having a problem with CPOE. Searched the newsRx site back to 12/04.
Reason I'm curious is because I didn't think Valimed could do that.
Can it make hot fudge sundaes too?
"Mott's children's hospital replaced CPOE, with ValiMed."
Why do you think Valimed replaced CPOE?
INET, I don't believe your thinking is accurate here:
"As I read it Henry Ford Health is part of the automotive group Ford, General Motors and Chrysler and Blue Cross and BS of Michigan who have been working towards assuring safety in hospitals. Having spent millions over the last few years in bar coding and computerizing prescriptions, Ford may be the first of them to switch to ValiMed as assurance."
I don't believe that Valimed is, or ever will replace bar coding and computerized prescriptions. The primary use is to provide additional QA to high-risk IV admixtures and to check narcotic returns from OR for diversion.
This is what Griffin has repeatedly stated in CDEx PR's.
If a validation system is needed to check computerized prescription filling, well, that's what ASD has. They claim they can do it in under a second nondestructively during the dispersing process.
The last I heard a pill needs to be crushed, then placed in the cuvette for testing using Valimed. If that's the case, it doesn't seem to be well-suited for everyday testing of pill prescriptions in a busy hospital pharmacy.
I believe that Valimed fills a niche need in health care systems for the validation of solutions and CDEX has targeted the most important applications.
doyourdd, apparently someone disagrees with you.
Interesting post Pookie. Nice presentation by James Stevenson. Simply explained and well illustrated with pictures and graphs.
http://www.michiganpharmacists.org/fluorometry.pdf
Do see what I mean doyourdd? Non CDEX related nonsense not worthy of even remaining on the board. All a product of a lot of spare time and a fertile imagination.
Kinda like the movie A Beautiful Mind
doyourdd, that conspiracy theory ran out of steam the day after it was posted. Capnmike apparently had a lot of spare time on his hands trying to scrap that one together! LOL
Paige, what exactly is so convincing to you? Read the specs, the scan distance is "under and inch" with a small scan area.
Didn't MP state that that was the reason the Army wasn't interested in the technology and they needed more time to improve those parameters? (Yes, things do get better with time- especially technology.)
The listing also says that the PSSS would be introduced in late 2004. I wonder if it's getting close to completion?
I wonder why they printed those color brochures back in 2003?
Why take a picture of a "production prototype" huh Moonster? Just a waste of time. They should wait until the "production unit" is available in volume. LOL
WMFT,
" What is wrong with posting info on the chief scientist for the company I am invested in? I don't care if the information is from 20 years ago or 20 minutes ago. If it is something hi tech he was involved in it is pertinent..."
There's nothing wrong with that Moonster. What I got cranky about was what your post was clearly suggesting. We've all read enough of that type posting from the resident stock promoters that have graced these boards. Even if you've heard things through the rumor mill it's best just to keep it to yourself.
As long as people don't post wild speculation or ridiculously suggestive posts, the so-called bashers are really not a problem, in fact, they're quite helpful! LOL (e.g., "22 Valimeds in every hospital")
"Why do I have to explain anything to you anyhow, you are not even an owner of stock in this company."
I don't know Moon, why are you explaining it to me? LOL And how are you so sure I'm not an owner of CDEx?
"Instead of sniping from behind a keyboard why don't you take up onthedges offer and go to Tucson and get your questions answered, or go put your tin foil hat back on and sit in the corner."
I just saw the Mel gibson movie Signs the other day and there was a couple of scenes that reminded me of you! LOL
AFA Tucson is concerned, I just may do that sooner than you think. In the mean time, I remain very curious how well Valimed is going to sell in regular hospitals (non teaching, non pediatric). Of course, we're not going to learn about that until after all the premier hospitals are targeted. That could be several production runs away.
I would be surprised if they aren't working on a lower cost unit to introduce into the smaller hospitals down the road. Classical marketing/ product evolution scheme- hit the cream of the crop, then start lowering product costs.
O/T Question regarding aircraft maintenance:
Have you every heard about or read the magazine Aircraft Maintenance Technology?
1988 NASA SBIR Phase I... did the feasibility study receive Phase II funding?
If yes, did it lead to commercialization and who has had ownership of the tech for the last 18 years?
If it didn't, why?
Why do some of you promote the idea on these boards that every project WP has been involved with during his career is going to produce a revolutionary CDEx product?
What relevance (besides pure speculation) does a 1988 Infrared Industries feasibilty study have to do with CDEx? You must have been fed information the rest of us haven't heard.
Yep, noses! LOL
Crow, I was wondering the same thing.
"The CAP was posting a heap about a "Meth Labs" sniffer before he suddenly quit posting."
Cap posted a link about how IR imaging of people inside houses requires a search warrant. I have no idea what that had to do with the meth lab sniffer. I dismissed it has yet another suggestive, but irrelevant post.
" Excactly what such was supposed to do is far from clear, though. Was it supposed to point out Meth Labs from the street?"
Remember that UVF-based detection is non-penetrating so if it was supposta detect from the street it would most likely be detecting the solvents used in cookin' up meth that have vented outside. That means they would have to have signatures for all the different solvents used. It's not just ether, the best solvents like ether are all controlled chemicals now. These guys now use whatever they can get their hands on, some are not pure chemicals, but mixtures of various hydrocarbons which would seem to be more difficult to signature.
Of course, once those solvents start drifting outside the house you can smell them a mile away and most drug enforcement officers are already equipped with suitable detection equipment that is field proven and accurate.
So how exactly CDEx tech will improve meth lab control is a very good question. Maybe we'll hear more details about it in the future.
Paige, no, I'm talking about their first non-provisional Patent App. No. 10/268,678 which deals exclusively with XRF. No UV mentioned.
The only reference that I found cited is their Provisional Patent No. 60/344,787.
The examiner cited several patents which were the basis for some of the initial claim rejections, is that what you're referring to?
RA/Paige, as I've stated in the past, my main interest has been in following the "XRF" patent application (10/268,678). I really don't know whether any of the "UV" patent apps which followed contained references. Can't remember and haven't looked.
The first app had zero references. Very strange. It was as if they actually had discovered a "basic truth of nature" like a newly discovered "low atmospheric absorption window for x-rays"!
A "new physics" as Art used to say.
"This is who represented our company throughout the whole patent process, including the investigation phase to make sure ther was no infringement on existing techs/patents."
Did CDEX cite the ASD patent as a reference in their application?
Rottenapple, I demand that you retract your ironclad, sacred "vow" of silence and tell us where that email originated!
Don't make WMFT ask a third time!!! LOL
"How can they sue a patent that is not Totaly Approved yet by the paper work that needs to be submitted?"
They're not Pookie, they're suing for alleged infringement on their patent (ASD's).
(Edite) I should have read ahead before commenting.