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.
Hi Puff,
"D4 From what I have read in previous posts, MP was part of the B&B (aka LH) fiasco. Are you now excluding him and WP from accuasations, and if so why, please?"
Yes, Loch Harris management is ultimately responsible for certain actions which we believe adversely effected trading by John Q. Public.
"What about Henry Blair, the possible Nobel Prize Winner? Who was the Masked Bandit and how did one perpurtrate such a scandel? I would think anyone that conjured this up must have (had) an outstanding mind and absolute mind set to foresee how this would play out. SHARE ANY THOUGHTS PLEASE."
Mr. Blair was not responsible for corporate decision making to our knowledge and is not anticipated to be involved if proceedings move forward.
TO ALL RE LEGAL ACTION:
In the past I posted that anyone interested in participating in a possible legal action against Loch Harris please contact me at diddy@lycos.com and you will be given another email for contact.
Let me clarify one thing. We are not interested in pursing legal action against CDEx nor it's principles including MP and WP.
Our focus is solely on specific actions of the past management of Loch Harris.
For those that have contacted me in the past, but aren't actively involved I will update you shortly but don't expect any details.
For those that inquired after my first announcement several weeks ago but received no reply I believe you can understand why. I will consider any objections you may have.
LOL Edgester!!!
Do you understand what you're saying here:
"If you want to put something on the line to back up your belief there are no letter(s) with the SEC or AG, I will gladly believe what I feel to be a fact there are."
If? "If" and only "If"?
Wait a cotton pickin' minute here Edge! I thought you already strongly believe that there are letters! LOL
Why do I now have to "put something on the line" in order for you to believe YOUR OWN STORY!!! LOL!!!
Ya see it edge? LOL
Your story went from:
"FACT" to...
"I Believe" to...
"I strongly believe"... to
"I will gladly believe if"
See it now Edge? Funny huh?
Xenophen,
What ever happen to that referral (for the rocket scientist job that Edge must have heard about)? LOL
Edge, If Poteet sent an Objection letter to the SEC in 1999 AS YOU NOW "STRONGLY BELIEVE", then why did he continue to work for the Boyz while they advertsied the same false and misleading PR's?
Gosh Edge, why did Poteet stay associated with Loch Harris during the pump-n-dump in 2000?
Why did Poteet go to Croatia with Boone and Baker and participate in the demonstration which was reported to have been conducted at a two meter stand-off distance with 100% accuarcy?
Why did Wade Poteet operate the ELF equipment at the Washington D.C Demo months later in September 2000?
Do you see the problem with your stories Edge. You don't think them thru. You create more suspicious questions than you answer. If I was Poteet I'd tell you to keep you mouth SHUT!
Seriously.
If your story is actually true, then YOU are compelling people like myself to ask the above questions to get at the truth. No one is attacking Poteet's character with malice, they're responding TO YOUR STORIES WHICH HAVE A HABIT OF CONTINUOUSLY CHANGING FROM FACTS TO BELIEFS!
"Valimed will check an "admixture or Compound" one active ingredient at a time, IF it has a signature for them. It will not Identify an unknown."
Hmmm, now that's a new twist on the discussion crow! LOL
So, an admixture of two active components would be tested twice using one individual signatures at a time?
The interference problems I mentioned would still apply so why not test all at once?
"Mr. Priest stated that they can do accuracy testing for sterile compounding."
Well there ya go, it is a given that the admixure is sterile.
Mr. Priest does not state "accuracy testing for compounding" nor does he state "testing for sterility".
He includes the adverb "sterile" to describe an important condition of the compounding process.
They are testing for the compounding accuracy of a sterile admixture. Sterile is a given.
It can be interpreted no other sensible way IMO.
End of story.
Xenophon,
The question is can the noise be filtered out enough and still leave behind a unique signature.
You say no and I agree.
Can the ELF/EM-1 operate efficiently at two meters to locate buried land mines?
You say no and I agree.
Can CDEx squeeze any more money outta this puppy before the big four decide they've had enough and turn over the reins to the newbies?
Crow, once again....
"If you are asking if it is possible to make a signature for A and another for B, can it make a signature for A+B,
I say not according to the BAXA thing."
CDEx is explicitly claiming that they can do it.
The Baxa FAQ does not provide enough information to firmly support that it can be done or it can't be done.
One last commnet from me. Assuming it can be done and it can be done practically there would be complications compared to signaturing a single active ingredient.
If there is any region in the spectral fingerprint where two or more ingredients overlap it would become difficult to distinguish the relative concentations and may interfere with identifying each unique signature. For this reason I believe that there are many more linitations to signaturing admixtures of two or more active ingredients. That is probably why they are unable to signature TPN's.
Crow,
"That is right..Diddy.. pills have inert ingredients. But Valimed can identify none of them unless they respond to UV stimulation and flourese, and there is a signature loaded. It will identify nothing unless signatured. How can it?? It ain't magic."
Not totally inert Crow, meds have non-active ingredients that do serve a non-medicinal function (eg, binders & lubricants). If any of these ingredients fluoresce in the spectral region of interest then they become part of the signature.
I talked with "the right people" at the FDA about Valimed after they reviewed the website and their first impresssion was that it was a "pharmacists tool". One thing they pointed out was that pharmaceutical companies can change certain non-active ingredients in their formulations without FDA reapproval. Now if those changes effect the signature then that will be a big problems for the use of Valimed as an aid to counterfeiting.
"I doubt that it will chack the degree of salinity in a drip mixture either..and surely not the microbes that might lurk there."
I agree. If the saline solution consists of simple chloride salts of Na and K, then I don't beleive that they can be fluoresced using UV.
I also wondered if TPN's contained mineral supplements. If so, that would pose a similar problem. I don't believe that any metal elements will fluoresce and the chelating agent used to allow the body to simulate them would probably cause complications as well.
"LOL!! We are morphing lots of Nouns into verbs or adverbs here. Its a wonder that Sanddollar ain't jumped on us for it."
She's come to accept our deviant ways over the years and even indulges herself on occasions (errr, but of course quite deliberately) LOL!
"Are there letters to the SEC from Dr. Poteet claiming false info from blair."
Blair? Why is Ontheedge now trying to protect Boone and Baker?
Blair has nothing to do with the information released in the false and misleading Loch Harris PR's IMO! That is the ultimate responsibility of Loch Harris management and their SEC savvy counsel.
You're acting like a child trying to blame it all on Blair!! LOL
In fact, RB poster "wpoteet" doesn't mention Blair at all in his three page post. Wpoteet states that all tests were conducted at a stand-off distance of 34 inches as consistently reported to Loch Harris management by Poteet and Cauthen.
Crow and RA do you see what I mean? Edge started telling "stories" last night without clearly thinking through the ramifications of what he was posting!
Now it's clean up time!! Don't wanna get DaBoyz in trouble after so much effort to keep'em clean. Time to blame it all on Blair!! LOL
Too late.
THREE SIMPLE QUESTION THAT ONTHEEDGE CANNOT ANSWER:
1. Please show me which claims make CDEx patent application No. 10/268678 "revolutionary"?
2. Can Valimed detect non-sterility in a med, admixture or solution?
3. Please show me where I've "lied about the science" and "posted untruths" as you continue to claim as fact?
Thank you.
What kind of weasel words are those Edge?
"I believe for a FACT that the letter(s) are in the SEC and Ag hands."
Why can't you just talk straight? LMAO!!!
Why can't you just say "I know for a fact?
What does "I believe for a fact" mean anyway(s)??? LOL
" believe the AG does have a letter(s) addressing, false info from Blair and Loch."
That must be another letter. That is NOT Poteet's Objection Letter to the SEC which we've discussed.
Poteet's letter allegedly objected to Loch management taking the test reports as submitted by Poteet and Cauthen and falsifying the data in PR's.
According to Ontheedge this letter was submitted to the SEC in 1999.
Another simple question, if Poteet submitted an Objection letter to the SEC in 1999, then why did he continue to support Loch Harris and attend trade shows and demos as Loch Harris continued to advertise a two meter stand-off distance. SPIE? The "DC" demo?
Crow, You yes nope. I say the Baxa FAQ does not specifically support your assertion.
You say:
"It will check only ONE medicine at a time. An "admixture" is more than that. Now if there was a "standard admixture" more or less universally or very often used, containing more than one medicine, and a signature could be developed for that specific "admixture" then yes maybe it would work."
I say... of course it has to have a signature in order to check the medicine. And CDEx doesn't seem to care whether the medicine is a standard mixture or custom formulated for a specific patient:
From Rottenapple:
d4diddy...I wonder how much a new signature to the ValiMed costs? From the FAQ, (BAXA) it would take at least a week to add a signature. Now think about this statement.
"VALIMED(TM) PATIENT SAFETY SOLUTION:
Validates High-Risk medications that are uniquely compounded for a specific patient."
It's hard to believe that when a hospital gets a new patient in, they will have to send a sample to CDEX to get a signature. Not only will they have to pay extra for it, they have to wait at least a week to get the ValiMed updated. It makes no sense!!!
THREE SIMPLE QUESTION THAT ONTHEEDGE CANNOT ANSWER:
1. Please show me which claims make CDEx patent application No. 10/268678 "revolutionary"?
2. Can Valimed detect non-sterility in a med, admixture or solution?
3. Please show me where I've "lied about the science" and "posted untruths" as you continue to claim as fact?
Thank you.
RA, talk with you later, this is my 15th post.
Edge got off easy tonight! LOL!!!
P.S. Edited to add this final comment from RA's post:
"I was talking about your claim that Poteet's objection letter could be found at the Attorney Generals office in Phoenix Arizona[\u]. You did say that, right? Now you're saying you think they might have a copy. That's a completey different tune you're singing now".
Wait till you hear what I've already found out, this dude posts without thinking things through clearly. He really does. And have no doubt, he will eventually claim the letter is locked in the secret SEC files!
How convenient is that! LOL
P.S.S. Edit number two: Ontheedge has just got himself in some very hot water!!!!
Well rottenapple, like some astute posters have said, "it appears to have very limited applications" That's OK though, the cow has already been milked dry and the SOL is approaching. Time to replace the management with new front men and let them authorize another 20 million shares or so.
That's how the scam has worked in the past, if it works don't fix it.
Why does anyone file a patent diddy?"
I'm sooooo glad you asked Edge. LOL
A patent is a negative right, it prevents others from producing your invention or performing your process, (whatever the case may be), but it does NOT necessarily give you the right to do so.
However, I don't believe that CDEx will have to worry about infringement with their "at least about one meter" patent marvel (if granted).
First, almost every claim has been rejected for being "obvious" or "anticipated". FACT.
Second, in the latest revison, ever independent claim where the phrase "at large stand-off distances" once appeared it has been replaced with "at least about one meter" (as suggested by the examiner). This still begs the question which claim(s) make the invention so revolutionary? How can changing a single phrase change the invention from "obvious" and "anticipated" to "revolutionary" (Simple Question No. 1 still unanswered)?
Third, the independent claims containing the phrase "at least about one meter" do NOT state a corresponding integration time. We have all learned that reporting stand-off distances without reporting the corresponding integration time is meaningless. Poster "wpoteet" wrote that ELF/EM-1 required up to a five minute shoot time at a two meter stand-off distance. IT WOULD BE MISLEADING TO ADVERTISE A TWO METER STAND-OFF DISTANCE WITHOUT INFORMING READERS THAT THE ASSOCIATED 5 MINUTE INTEGRATION TIME MAKES THE INTENDED APPLICATION OF THE EQUIPMENT AT THAT DISTANCE COMPLETELY IMPRACTICAL!
Why do the current CDEx patent claims ignore the corresponding integration time?
What do I think? Well, ask any patent agent or attorney and they'll tell you that many people patent inventions just to hang a plague on their wall. The inventions are commercially worthless.
Do I think this is the case with CDEx? No sir/mam, I don't believe that for one second. While I believe that the CDEx patent is frivolous, I certainly don't believe that it's worthless. I think it's been invaluable in deterring civil liability suits against the Boyz. What would the true blue investors think if Loch/CDEx filed a patent for a UVF based invention without first filing a patent for their original billion dollar baby? I know one poster that would call that "suicide".
Perish the thought.
I have stated many times that I don't believe that Loch/CDEx will ever build a ELF/EM-1 type trace explosive detector based solely on XRF. I believe that they've abandoned their billion dollar baby for good.
If you would like a treatise on this subject you can go to the RB "CDEX" board and review the dialogue between "diddy" and "artabraham". There you will find more of diddy's beliefs and artabraham's belief that "the boyz are not crooks, just bad managers".
"LOL, You say alleged, I say I believe he did. I have not read the letter. I believe the letter was delivered to the SEC sometime in 1999."
When you say "I believe" the statement automatically becomes hearsay until confirmed to be a fact. Certainly a wise thing to do when it comes to your story telling which has been virtually 100% hearsay!
Crow, I still don't see how you reach the conclusion that Valimed can't verify an admixture.
I understand that TPN ingredients are complex and formulated to meet each patients individual nutrition needs and it would be totally impractical to signature them even if it was possible.
I believe (regardless of the hype) that Valimed cannot distinguish between steril and non-sterile drugs.
What I don't understand is what would be the usefulness of Valimed if it can't verify a high risk admixture? Sure it would have some utility in verifying the selection and strength of each ingredient, but how about making sure that the admixture was compounded in the right proportions? I thought that was the most important concern, human error in mixing, not selecting the ingredients.
I propose that if Valimed can be used to discriminate between authentic and counterfeit drugs, then it can validate a admixture. Pharmaceuticals have all kinds of stuff in them besides the active ingredient(s).
What say ye.
" I understand that 3 million of the preferred stock was converted in Class A common stock at the time of the last shareholders meeting in 2004, to increase the employee stock option shares from 7 million to 10 million."
Ahhh yes, wasn't that so the "big four" can get there self-awarded severance packages when they step down?
I wonder if WP and MP and MM have already received theirs?
My gawd how these people have bled the company dry!!! And what have they accomplished after 5 years and 20 million?
One product with Beta units in the field awaiting final engineering?
Hey Nasfan (smartypants), do you think the assembly line is ready for volume production like you claimed TWO years ago? Geewiz it also looks like final engineering has NOT been completed yet like you insisted it was TWO YEARS? LOL!!!!
And ICCDP didn't think Nasfan was hyping the stock, how could a "professional engineer" be so wrong about engineering if he was not.
lmorovan, when you say preferred shares do you mean Class B shares?
The reason I ask is because I thought the original "preferred" shares (whatever that means) have already been converted to Class A shares?
I disagree crow...
"BS quit selling back in 2001 and 2002............"
The BS appears to have been selling well enough for CDEx to totally exhaust their supply of product.
What little they have left wouldn't be available for sale until it automatically converts from the coveted Class B shares to the common Class A shares at the end of the prescribed four year period.
(Coming soon after March 26, 2006)
Crow, what information did you read to make you believe that the Valimed unit doesn't verify admixtures, only the individual ingredients?
Raiderman said:
"The financials run through October 31, 2005. The financials run through October 31, 2005. I repeated that for emphasis."
He should also have emphasized that THE FILING INCLUDES THE $1,500,000 WORTH OF SHARES SOLD TO BAXA!
Verified 100% in a post by Arloco.
Re: Dr. Wade Poteet's alleged "Objection letter to the SEC"
Ontheedge has claimed that Dr. Wade Poteet filed an objection letter with the SEC. Ontheedge did not disclose the content of the letter, when the letter was allegedly delieverd to the SEC, nor how he became privy to this information.
It was implicitly understood (at least by me) from the conversation (on this board) that the letter objected to the falsification of test reports submitted to Loch Harris management by Poteet and Cauthen.
When I asked Ontheedge how I can find a record of this letter he replied that I should contact the State of Arizona Attorney General's office in Phoenix.
Not only have I contacted the Attorney General, I've also contacted the Phoenix and Tucson District Attorney's offices and I will report my findings to this board.
Why is this important? It's important because the content of the letter may provide concrete evidence that the management of Loch Harris intentionally falsified press releases concerning the perfomance of ELF. The date of the letter will help determine when Poteet finally got some free time away from the lab (Ontheedge's story) and realized that the investment public were being defrauded.
Will we ever find such an incriminating letter? I don't think so. My guess is that it's just another Ontheedge story similar to his "Absence of Malice" story.
Ask yourselves this question. If Ontheedge really believes that DaBoyz are the bad guys, and if he really believes that Poteet is innocent and that the alleged letter would exonerate him from any suspicion, then why does he not provide the information so shareholders can review the letter?
I believe it's just another tall tale, but will follow thru just the same.
Capnmike, two simple questions:
Capnmike, do you believe that Valimed can detect whether a med, admixture, or solution is sterile or non-sterile?
(Simple public question No. 3)
Capnmike, is it the intent of some of your posts to lead readers to believe that Valimed can detect non-sterility?
(Simple public question No. 4)
Ontheedge,
My oh my you can obfuscate!!!
"Now, I have no doubt you can answer the above litte fill in the blank. It is related to a small part of the untruths you and others try and post."
"But once you have filled in the blanks. You will have fessed up to some of your untruths."
You have claimed that I have "lied about the science" and now you're accusing me of telling "untruths".
I've asked you several times to show me where I've "lied about the science" and you haven't replied. Instead you play a fill in the blanks GAME and claim that I post "untuths".
A SIMPLE AND DIRECT QUESTION:
STOP PLAYING GAMES and show me where I've lied about the science and posted untruths!!
YOU CANNOT so you dance!
INET,
Your reply leads me to believe that you missed my point entirely.
Oh... and BTW INET, can souls really be murdered?
Do souls die?
Strange beliefs to say the least.
(Edited after reading Rottenapple's post)
"Why does anyone file a patent diddy?"
I'm sooooo glad you asked Edge. LOL
A patent is a negative right, it prevents others from producing your invention or performing your process, (whatever the case may be), but it does NOT necessarily give you the right to do so.
However, I don't believe that CDEx will have to worry about infringement with their "at least about one meter" patent marvel (if granted).
First, almost every claim has been rejected for being "obvious" or "anticipated". FACT.
Second, in the latest revison, ever independent claim where the phrase "at large stand-off distances" once appeared it has been replaced with "at least about one meter" (as suggested by the examiner). This still begs the question which claim(s) make the invention so revolutionary? How can changing a single phrase change the invention from "obvious" and "anticipated" to "revolutionary" (Simple Question No. 1 still unanswered)?
Third, the independent claims containing the phrase "at least about one meter" do NOT state a corresponding integration time. We have all learned that reporting stand-off distances without reporting the corresponding integration time is meaningless. Poster "wpoteet" wrote that ELF/EM-1 required up to a five minute shoot time at a two meter stand-off distance. IT WOULD BE MISLEADING TO ADVERTISE A TWO METER STAND-OFF DISTANCE WITHOUT INFORMING READERS THAT THE ASSOCIATED 5 MINUTE INTEGRATION TIME MAKES THE INTENDED APPLICATION OF THE EQUIPMENT AT THAT DISTANCE COMPLETELY IMPRACTICAL!
Why do the current CDEx patent claims ignore the corresponding integration time?
What do I think? Well, ask any patent agent or attorney and they'll tell you that many people patent inventions just to hang a plague on their wall. The inventions are commercially worthless.
Do I think this is the case with CDEx? No sir/mam, I don't believe that for one second. While I believe that the CDEx patent is frivolous, I certainly don't believe that it's worthless. I think it's been invaluable in deterring civil liability suits against the Boyz. What would the true blue investors think if Loch/CDEx filed a patent for a UVF based invention without first filing a patent for their original billion dollar baby? I know one poster that would call that "suicide".
Perish the thought.
I have stated many times that I don't believe that Loch/CDEx will ever build a ELF/EM-1 type trace explosive detector based solely on XRF. I believe that they've abandoned their billion dollar baby for good.
If you would like a treatise on this subject you can go to the RB "CDEX" board and review the dialogue between "diddy" and "artabraham". There you will find more of diddy's beliefs and artabraham's belief that "the boyz are not crooks, just bad managers".
Butterfly you've got to be kidding???
"Sounds like a daytrading trick to shake weak hands. Investors are too smart for that nice try..."
Who's day trading this stock?
Who's trying to shake weak hands?
Why?
LMAO!!!
Ontheedge,
Posted by: ontheedge01
In reply to: d4diddy who wrote msg# 7541 Date:1/26/2006 4:03:55 PM
Post #of 7830
d4diddy:
"I asked you where can Poteet's objection letter to the SEC be found?"
Attorney Generals office, Phoenix Arizona
Your second question will be answered when you find the first one.
I have had no luck finding any reference to an Objection letter submitted to the Arizona Attorney General's office by Dr. Wade Poteet.
Do you have a reference number or do you know the name of the addressee?
SIMPLE PUBLIC QUESTION NUMBER FOUR.
Raiderman, 20 million dollars to produce a single product (still not in production) is hardly a shoestring budget!
Arloco, can you give me a call at your convenience (that means NOW if not sooner)! LOL
Please do post the name of the biotech company and the specific question that you asked them. TIA
"... but you can call and ask them..."
What should we ask them doyourdd?
Who told you?
"Baxa with 10% of outstanding stock is approaching control of CDEX."
Those are Class A shares. Do we even know whether Baxa placed a director on the board?
Regardless, MP owns the majority of Class B shares and has hand picked directors at his side.
No take over possible until after the SOL runs out- March 26, 2006.
"Why are cost of sales from 3rd quarter to 4th quarter only $1,699 when inventories dropped 44K."
Because they "delivered" another unit, but did not sell it?
200,000.00/year