NanoLogix eNews on Website ...


I was trying to figure out why people are making a fuss about what they argue is insider information. Arguing that pictures of boxes was some kind of violation just didn't make sense. So I looked at the NanoLogix website. Prominently displayed on that site in the upper right hand corner is a sign up box labeled "Signup for eNews". Anyone in the world can sign up for eNews simply by filling in the information that includes e-mail address and name--not anonymous user name but actual name. Even though I am not signed into this list the reality is that anyone can do so and receive information about NanoLogix from the company. I think that this is the list to which the photos were distributed. All shareholders and even non-shareholders ("SmoothTool") can sign up and receive company releases.

There is absolutely nothing inappropriate about this and I suggest that anyone who wants to receive these low cost updates go ahead and sign up. If a person has actually been doing market research on the company it seems essential that they would visit the company website and this option is quite clear. If one opts not to do the research or not to become part of this distribution list then that is a personal choice (as I said I am not on it) and that person can not then claim the company is engaged in inappropriate behavior. Quite the contrary, the easily joinable and publicly offered list gives any interested party the opprtunity to receive information.

Could someone explain ...

What is going on in this string of comments? The photos I saw were distributed on this site. That means they were available to anyone on the Internet. Yet the tone of a few comments is to the effect that there was something sinister in the posting of photos? I don't get it. Can't people talk about sales developments, product line expansion, potential new market niches, the possible importance of the multi-well kit and the development of the N-Assay technology, or the apparent enhancements in the user friendliness of the product ordering on the website. That might be of more use than some false issue about photos that were available to anyone with a computer or smart phone.

This is exciting ...

As an indication of growing company maturity and sales strategy. Maybe those boxes we saw actually had stuff in them. Since I saw the shelves and the evidence that a significant order was in the process of being delivered I sort of think that NanoLogix is on the move. In any event, Happy Thanksgiving to most of you.

What does a formula for a mature company

have to do with an emerging and growing developmental company in the process of entering and expanding its domestic and international markets and creating even better diagnostic technologies? If you wonder why your analyses are always questioned you need to think whether you are talking about NanoLogix or some hypothetical "thing" you invented. Focus on the reality and promise of NanoLogix and in the immortal words of Robert DeNiro "analyze this".

But you are guessing ...

I don't get it. You are correct that the Company has not released recent financials. That in itself means that you have to guess about current conditions. Given that there is no legal requirement for the Company to release financials on a schedule that satisfies you the fact that you still opt to utilize old data and assume that it applies now is questionable. My point is simply that I do not know. But there has been info provided about trends and developments that is positive. Some people opt in that direction others not. "Nuff" said. No meeting of the minds. By the way you said you were "asked" to provide that analysis?

You grossly overstate operating dollars ...

And have no idea of actual revenues even though there have been repeated reports about their increase. Within the "careful" parameters that do not allow me to respond how I might like, I do suggest that the information provided by the Company about shifts and changes in personnel have dramatically reduced the operating expenses to a point that something like $35,000 to $40,000 per month is likely to be much more accurate. Similarly, if the Company at this point is generating something like $75,000 per month and growing (I don't know the specifics but I think this is quite possible) then the figures offered are beyond questionable. I guess I would have to ask what prompted your selection of the particular scenario you chose?

What are its capabilities and market niches?

I think we all heard that it was being developed but have no detailed knowledge about the multi-well technology. I am assuming that it is the tech that has been referred to as the "N-Assay" system? Thirty minutes on GBS sounds fantastic. I think the multi-well aspect means that multiple bacteria can be tested simultaneously and this is an important development. I suggested to a medical person at one time that the BNP was better than other diagnostic systems (and it clearly is for many purposes) and the response was that many medical people wanted to be able to test for a variety of things at the same time for purposes of elimination of possibilities and narrowing down quickly to the core problem. So as the multi-well technology develops this would appear to fit into the users' needs and preferences. When the BNP sensitivity advantage is paired with the expansion in simultaneous testing this would seem to be quite important. At least that is what I am assuming about the nature of the multi-well technology.

Transforming into the "other" board?

Please stop. My guess is that it is unlikely to be $2.00 by the end of the year because the share pricing is not under the Company's control. There is a disconnect between what should be and what is over which NanoLogix has no control. I have no idea what the price will be but do understand (as I said after a visit a month and a half ago) that there are substantial orders and that they are increasing. I, for one, will not mind if the situation that emerges involves payment of a dividend on shares. I will be happy if one of the Big Pharma or medical supply companies buy out the Company. But absolutely no purpose (at least for investors) is served by penny ante sniping or silly interpersonal vendettas. The last thing this board needs is to be reduced to the inanity of the "other" board about which I hear but haven't looked at for many months due to its viciousness. Let's not go there.

I liked yours ...

I certainly don't want this site to degenerate into the "other" "seized by the devil" location, but there does seem to be a bit of a strange set of judgments that go on here. Getting better though. Not as bad or interventionist as formerly. For some strange reason I do continue to think that there ought to be some way of the site differentiating between actual investors and phonies who are trying to influence the share price--up or down. One of the serious problems (I think) in American innovation is that there are so many little companies with great ideas, potential and technologies that get sabotaged by a network of creeps who are only after the shortest of short term profits and don't care if they are killing the heart of American economic development.

Wow!

That was deleted incredibly quickly. All I asked, because I sort of think it is important, is whether this is an Investor Board where INVESTORS discuss important information about THEIR INVESTMENTS.

What I said, edited now for popular consumption in response to the self-designated "smooth guy" post, was:

Because it might seem to some of us "lesser" lights who do not possess your wisdom that all you do is try to "trash" the stock, attempting to undermine anything positive that anyone says under all conditions. I think that the likelihood the company has moved into the profitability zone and can therefore survive and concentrate on building expanding market share is a "good" thing. Perhaps the "empty box" is actually the "ultra-smooth" guy following up to the "fulcrumgavel" guy (center of power). Do you actually think people can't figure out your "junk"?

Just for Fun ...


I spent no more than five minutes running through the information NanoLogix provided us on its website. The collection below is for 2013 and doesn't include the "famous" "Boxes", FedEx shipment, storage room shelves loaded with product, etc. Nonetheless, other than a specific financial report which I assume will be provided in the relatively near future when it shows clear profitability and emergence from any need to raise funds through share sales or providing competitors with information about how NanoLogix is siphoning off parts of their markets I found the range of information to be substantial. So here is what I found in a very few minutes on the NanoLogix site under "News & Events".

• August 18, 2013:
Dr Jonathan Faro of the UTHSC at Houston presented two posters at the IDSOG meeting in Albuquerque showing the results of tests with NanoLogix BNF and new Multiwell N-Assay diagnostics. The N-Assay delivered 30 minute results for detection and identification of Group B Streptococcus (GBS) while the BNF provided detection, identification, and determination of sensitivity to clindamycin antibiotic in 6 - 6.5 hours. Both tests are significantly faster than the standard tests in use, which take 48-72 hours for the same results. The significance of the results and impact upon screening for GBS in pregnancies, and potentially in the elderly and immuno-compromised patients of all ages, is tremendous.
1. FC-Fragment.pdf
2. Clinda.pdf

• August 06, 2013:
NanoLogix Inc. Report on technologies
To assist in the commercialization, production, and marketing of NanoLogix BNP, N-Assay, BNF, and..

• June 21, 2013:
NanoLogix Inc. Report on technologies

June 21, 2013 Video instructional update for use of BNP kits

• Jun 11, 2013: Nanologix® News: US EPA and NanoLogix to Extend Agreement to 2015 Read more>>>
•
• April 30, 2013:
NanoLogix Inc. Report on technologies
The past fifteen months have been highly successful for NanoLogix as it continues to develop new products and new markets. In that time, the company has advanced in a number of important areas, including development of new technologies, increasing sales and customer bases, and garnering substantial recognition in published research on NanoLogix products and techniques. We are excited by these developments and by additional new opportunities.

New Technologies

The technological developments at NanoLogix are revolutionary. Besides improving on existing BNP and BNF products and protocols, the Company has gained great success in the market for its Extended-Life Petri dishes and BNP diagnostic kits that are vacuum-packed in gas charged FlatPacks. The FlatPack technology – exclusively licensed by NanoLogix – represents a major breakthrough in supply-chain management for these products. Users of FlatPack-packaged Petri dishes can potentially achieve significant cost savings and supply chain efficiencies over traditional Petri dish supply because select-media FlatPack plates do not require refrigeration, have a significantly reduced rate of loss in shipment and storage, and have a shelf life far beyond that of traditional Petri dishes. The company is currently selling Extended-Life Petri dishes and BNP diagnostic kits that are vacuum-packed in gas-charged FlatPacks and made in various common nutrient media configurations. Customers to date include independent laboratories and hospital laboratories, defense contractors and Federal agencies. NanoLogix products are at present being used on six classified Federal government projects, with expanded use expected this year. Those projects are funded by the United States Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency.
In the past year we and our collaborators in research and development have made significant refinements to our existing technologies and have also developed one additional rapid test. The new test has been named the N-Assay. The N-Assay is a unique ELISA multiwell machine-readable assay that provides results for bacteria identification and antibiotic sensitivity in less than one hour with high sensitivity and specificity. Indications to date are that the N-Assay will provide rapid results for any bacteria for which an antibody exists. We at NanoLogix and the researchers using the N-Assay are very excited at this new development. The N-Assay is projected to provide a premier platform for Point-of–Care rapid diagnostics. N-Assay patent filings were made in 2013. It is projected that the N-Assay will be more suitable for use in some developed areas than our BNF identification technology, but not in other areas or regions that are less developed.

Scholarship and Research on NanoLogix Technologies

In December 2012 a paper was published in the Journal of Microbial and BioChemical Technology detailing preliminary results using the company’s BNP technology for detection of live Tuberculosis through culture. Those results were obtained in five days, compared to weeks with standard culture methods. http://www.omicsonline.org/1948-5948/pdfdownload.php?download=JMBT-04-147.pdf In January of 2013 the final results of a 356 patient clinical study by researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston were published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology detailing the results obtained with NanoLogix’s BNF technology for rapid detection of Group B Streptococcus in pregnant patients. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/idog/2013/367935/

New License and Patents

The company has been recently granted a patent for its BNP technology in Japan, its BNC technology in China, and has indications that it will soon receive a grant of patent in the EU for BNP. Patents are pending for BNP in the US, China, Russia, India, Brazil and the EU. Patents for BNF technology are pending in the US, China, the EU, Japan, India and Brazil. A US patent was granted in April 2013 for the FlatPack® packaging technology, to which NanoLogix has an exclusive license. The FlatPack® technology has been pivotal to the sales of filled Petri plates by the company, with extraordinary increases in shelf life, durability of product during shipping, and numerous other advantages over all competitors’ similar products. We have exhibited our BNF and BNP and licensed FlatPack® Petri technologies at multiple events: the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) BioDefense and Emerging Diseases Meeting and the Food Safety Summit, both in Washington, D.C., and at the ASM Annual Meeting in San Francisco
Marketing

In 2013, NanoLogix contracted with a team of independent marketing specialists to promote the Company’s products to key opinion leaders (KOLs) and executives in multiple health, industrial, pharmaceutical and food sectors. The marketing team is composed of current or former directors and managers of two national and international pharmaceutical corporations. This alliance continues the transition of the Company from a primary focus on research and development to one of production and marketing. There will be a continued science emphasis upon product Quality Assurance and Quality Control and also water quality test development with the US EPA. This new focus is resulting in a reallocation of resources with a heavy emphasis upon increased high level marketing on multiple fronts.

Financial Matters

As of 1 April 2013, the company has 122,679,679 shares outstanding of an authorized limit of 200,000,000 shares. Our current monthly operations costs are approximately $42,000. That amount includes the costs of NanoLogix-funded studies, other tests of our products by third parties, and new patent applications. NanoLogix is funded by a combination of revenue from increasing sales, loans to the company by its CEO, and a limited number of private placement stock sales, with investors providing funding in exchange for common stock restricted from market sale for one year from date of issuance. The company does not sell shares on the open market. The Company has received a number of inquiries regarding share compensation to Directors and sales of those shares. All Directors are compensated for their contribution to the Company by payment in restricted shares. The Directors are closely involved with the business of the Company, communicate with the CEO on a daily or near-daily basis, and participate in board of director meetings regularly. All Directors have been personally involved in assisting financially with the needs of the Company, both through personal direct investment and also through facilitation of private placement investment from friends, family, colleagues, and associates who approached the Directors. The Directors have been responsible in this way for the overwhelming majority of funds raised to run the company over the past five years, amounting to roughly 92% of funds raised. To date, none of the shares paid to the Directors, including the CEO, have been sold. All of the share certificates issued to the members of the Board of Directors are still classed as restricted shares and can only be sold under strict SEC Rule 144 guidelines. In summation, there has been no realized monetary gain from the shares received as compensation by the Board of Directors *** the shares cannot be used as collateral for loans, nor can they be classed as a liquid asset. The Board of Directors is independent, with the directors employed individually in professions completely unrelated to the business of NanoLogix. Their work as Directors of the Company has been based upon what they believe to be the potential of the Company, not for any immediate capital gain.

In late 2012 and early 2013 Nanologix was approached separately by two multibillion dollar corporations regarding business association, development and product usage. NanoLogix has signed Mutual Confidentiality Agreements with both corporations.

• April 05, 2013:

NanoLogix plans to begin marketing this summer of their new N-Assay Multiwell Diagnostic test. The N-Assay is a machine-readable test that will be available in an assortment of size configurations for detection and identification of a variety of bacteria. Tests to date have provided consistent results in as little as 30 minutes with both high sensitivity and specificity.

• April 02, 2013:

NanoLogix has been informed that they have been granted a patent in Japan for the Company's BNP detection technology. This is the first granted patent of seven patents pending for BNP throughout the world.

• Jan 22, 2013: NanoLogix Inc is pleased to announce that the results of the University of Texas Health Science Center - Houston (UTHSC - Houston) Clinical Study utilizing NanoLogix's BNF technology to detect and identify Group B Streptococcus in pregnant patients have been accepted for publication in a noted peer-reviewed journal. The 352-patient Clinical Study was performed from March 2011 through May 2012 at Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston. In the study, times for detection and identification of GBS were reduced from 48-72 hours to 4-6 hours. In accordance with journal protocols and preservation of pre-release confidentiality, further details will be released upon publication.

June 11, 2013

Nanologix® News: US EPA and NanoLogix to Extend Agreement to 2015 Read more>>>

NanoLogix Clean Room
Apr 30, 2013

Nanologix® News:NanoLogix to Exhibit at Food Safety Summit in Baltimore and American Society for Microbiology Annual Meeting in Denver. Read more>>>

Apr 2, 2013
Nanologix® News:NanoLogix has been informed that they have been granted a patent in Japan for the Company's BNP detection technology. This is the first granted patent of seven patents pending for BNP throughout the world..

Mar 13, 2013
Nanologix® News:UTHealth researchers say more rapid test for Group B strep successful. Read more>>>

Feb 20, 2013
Nanologix® News: NanoLogix Bacteria Detection Plates Break Longevity Records Using Anthrax as Reference Bacteria. Read more>>>

Jan 11, 2013
Nanologix® News: Third-party results for ongoing agar room temperature (RT) testing at 4 months+. Current NanoLogix internal lab results for RT testing have passed the 9-month point, with no degradation of the agar. Read more>>>

Jun 19, 2013
This Video contains a short description of protocol for users of NanoLogix BNP bacteria/mold detection kits. You will see detection of an eColi O157 H7 lab sample after 30 minutes of incubationp>

Jun 11, 2013
Nanologix® News: US EPA and NanoLogix to Extend Agreement to 2015

Apr 30, 2013
Nanologix® News: NanoLogix to Exhibit at Food Safety Summit in Baltimore and American Society for Microbiology Annual Meeting in Denver.

March 13, 2013
UTHealth researchers say more rapid test for Group B strep successful

Feb 20, 2013
NanoLogix Bacteria Detection Plates Break Longevity Records Using Anthrax as Reference Bacteria

Jan 11, 2013
Nanologix® News: nanologix packing systemThird-party results for ongoing agar room temperature (RT) testing at 4 months+. Current NanoLogix internal lab results for RT testing have passed the 9-month point, with no degradation of the agar.

February 25th - 27th, 2013: 2013 ASM BioDefense and Emerging Diseases Research Meeting


August 18, 2013

Dr Jonathan Faro of the UTHSC at Houston presented two posters at the IDSOG meeting in Albuquerque showing the results of tests with NanoLogix BNF and new Multiwell N-Assay diagnostics. The N-Assay delivered 30 minute results for detection and identification of Group B Streptococcus (GBS) while the BNF provided detection, identification, and determination of sensitivity to clindamycin antibiotic in 6 - 6.5 hours. Both tests are significantly faster than the standard tests in use, which take 48-72 hours for the same results. The significance of the results and impact upon screening for GBS in pregnancies, and potentially in the elderly and immuno-compromised patients of all ages, is tremendous.
1. FC-Fragment.pdf
2. Clinda.pdf

August 6,2013
NanoLogix Inc. Report on technologies Date: 6 August 2013

April 9, 2013
Patent No.: US 8413800B2 & Patent Date: 9 April 2013

March 13, 2013
UTHealth researchers say more rapid test for Group B strep successful

Feb 20, 2013
NanoLogix Bacteria Detection Plates Break Longevity Records Using Anthrax as Reference Bacteria
________________________________________
The results of a study for rapid TB detection and identification by a major third-party research facility utilizing NanoLogix BioNanoPore (BNP) technology have been published in the Journal of Microbial & Biochemical Technology
Third party study utilizing Nanologix BNP Technology - December 13, 2012
The results of a study for rapid TB detection and identification by a major third-party research facility utilizing NanoLogix BioNanoPore (BNP) technology have been published in the Journal of Microbial & Biochemical Technology
Read more>>

Huh?

C'mon Fulcrum....

Your obscene response in the recent note fits into your past posts on this board every time you get called on things and resort to substances. Just because you change your poster ID doesn't mean you have changed.

Probably because ...


Of people who continually demonstrate bad faith and the willingness to twist anything posted in order to try to develop a negative impression. "Empty boxes"? Give us a break. It is one thing to provide "good faith" investors with information and I think that is probable in the near future. But you, particularly, ought to admit that not every person who makes observations has the best interests of the company and its real investors at heart, eh?

And in your mind ...?


What do those pictures signify? Assume that the staff I spoke with were being accurate (I totally do) and that new orders from multiple sources are coming in with significant volumes, what do pictures of those orders show? We can go down the line of the "new" (old) "trasher" and say OMG maybe they were "empty" but it is clear that product is being sold. At some point we need to allow this business to develop without interference. I expect reports in a few months. I (and probably you and others) understand the difficulties involved in capturing growing market share in a traditional industry that wants to "milk" profits for as long as possible and to Hell with the people who have medical problems.

After my visit I feel comfortable that the company is selling product in a substantial and growing volume to multiple customers. When that will translate to share price is something no one can know. But if it keeps growing it can translate to an ultimate dividend and that will manifest in share price whether or not any f the "Bigs" buy out NanoLogix's product. By the way, a buy out could just as easily be aimed at controlling an squashing the NanoLogix technology because they make bigger $$ on the crap they sell now. I hope that latter point helps to understand the motives behind some of the people we are dealing with.

A month ago ...



I stopped by the NanoLogix office while I was traveling through that area on a rare trip. Hoped to see the CEO. I hadn't called in advance and he wasn't there because he was delivering a "big" order according to what I was told by several office workers. They also said there were various customers and that significant orders were developing with others. I wasn't provided any numbers but was shown the cold storage room pictured and it was stacked with product although there was also a large area that I was told had just been emptied in order to fill the shipment being delivered. Now you all know what I know and can put the "creepy guy" with the new name to whom Badgers was responding out to pasture. As far as I could tell things are really picking up and the staff was enthused. I am sure anyone who wants to visit the NanoLogix office is welcome to do so.

What is your analysis on this issue?


Interesting question. Since you asked the question could you make a stab at providing your analysis (expert or not) for the rest of us, and then we might respond and support, add or critique?

Do you have the capacity for self awareness?


Look in the mirror. People nice to me, I'm nice to people. Courtesy is a two-way path. Read what you wrote initially and dwell on what you said and how you said it.

You are correct plus ...

There is not an absolute line of "good/bad" quality of the plates in which one day they are 100% and the next 0%. The NanoLogix plates remain at 100% testing quality. The plates from other companies start degrading depending on storage conditions after probably a month or so. The result is that those plates may be reordered in three months but are performing in various instances at only 60-70% efficiency. This can result in substandard testing/diagnostic results. There is also the quite serious issue of the range of quality diagnoses for different bacteria that can be achieved with the NanoLogix plates and the speed of result. Along with this goes the "hardiness" of the NanoLogix plates combined with the protective/preserving packaging in "field" conditions for military and other uses outside the US. The 100% quality of the plates and the more rapid diagnosis under difficult field conditions in lower tech contexts also allow for more precise antibiotic interventions in specific areas of infection, reduce or eliminate false negatives to prevent the maturation of diseases to the point they are more difficult to treat or even impossible to treat. All this "stuff" is quite important.

Why?

Your underlined inclusion simply states that the Company has the right to license the packaging to others in non-product line areas. That's a "good" thing, not a bad thing. Plus, an exclusive license or "lease" involves a situation in which an operating company--which NanoLogix is--has the sole rights to control how the patent is used and who uses it. Could you start focusing on the good things for once rather than seeking to continually snipe? As to my fee, I could charge more but why should I? I try not to gouge clients like some lawyers. Continual references like that are juvenile.

So Assumptions are your "Facts" about patent ownership?

What if the CEO looked at the existing packaging, decided it needed better product protection, mulled it over for awhile, worked it out in his mind at home, and decided to figure out how to improve the packaging? Then he came to work and suggested that packaging could be improved and it eventually included the used of inert gases in a completely sealed wrapper with the plates inside. Your position actually means that if someone (Janitor, secretary etc.) did something like that then the company owns their ideas no matter what and in the absence of a contract to that effect or their job function. Just because you want something to be so does not make it so. What if in the course of thinking about this packaging an individual got thirsty and took a bottle of water from the NanoLogix fridge? Is that a sufficient use of company resources? How about if in elaborating on the proof of concept the person grabbed some Saran Wrap from a cupboard at NanoLogix and used it to visualize the packaging? Enough use of resources? Just trying to see where you are coming from.

Do You Understand the Meaning of Exclusive License?

Seriously, why are people dwelling on this when NanoLogix "OWNS" an exclusive global license to this patent. No one else can use it without the Company's permission. It can't be alienated unless NanoLogix ceases to exist. The Company controls the packaging patent, reaps the benefits and gains the profits. What needs to be said other than that?

My posted questions were simple.

1. What are your specific report-based data for the statements you made about cost and effectiveness?

2. What do you now about the costs of the NanoLogix products that allows you to claim it is more expensive than other methods? If you analyze (or know anything about efficiency, effectiveness, capital costs of molecular diagnostic systems (machinery, upkeep, repair, accuracy, scope of coverage, applicability in both high and low tech diagnostic environments, associated specialized labor costs) you simply cannot claim that the NanoLogix products are more expensive or less effective without gross misrepresentation and/or an agenda.

Antibiotics and a Critical Diagnostic Health Crisis

I wonder if a diagnostic technology that helps identify infections faster than any other, with dramatically reduced cost, with defined specificity as to the nature of the bacteria and with an early identification of "live" v. "dead" bacteria and the ability to focus on specific rather than generic antibiotics would be of any use to the CDC and medical community?

'We've reached the end of antibiotics': Top CDC expert declares that 'miracle drugs' that have saved millions are no match against 'superbugs' because people have overmedicated themselves

By Snejana Farberov

PUBLISHED: 00:30 EST, 26 October 2013 | UPDATED: 01:17 EST, 26 October 2013


Health crisis: Dr Arjun Srinivasan, the associate director of the CDC, told PBS' Frontline that misuse and overuse of antibiotics over the years have rendered them powerless to fight infections

A high-ranking official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has declared in an interview with PBS that the age of antibiotics has come to an end.

'For a long time, there have been newspaper stories and covers of magazines that talked about "The end of antibiotics, question mark?"' said Dr Arjun Srinivasan. 'Well, now I would say you can change the title to "The end of antibiotics, period.”'

The associate director of the CDC sat down with Frontline over the summer for a lengthy interview about the growing problem of antibacterial resistance.

Srinivasan, who is also featured in a Frontline report called 'Hunting the Nightmare Bacteria,' which aired Tuesday, said that both humans and livestock have been overmedicated to such a degree that bacteria are now resistant to antibiotics.

‘We're in the post-antibiotic era,' he said. 'There are patients for whom we have no therapy, and we are literally in a position of having a patient in a bed who has an infection, something that five years ago even we could have treated, but now we can’t.’.

‘In hospitals, when you see MRSA infections, you oftentimes see that in patients who have a catheter in their blood, and that creates an opportunity for MRSA to get into their bloodstream,’ he said.

Nightmare superbug: Srinivasan said that about 10 years ago, he began seeing outbreaks of different kinds of MRSA infections, which previously had been limited to hospitals, in schools and gyms

‘In the community, it was causing a very different type of infection. It was causing a lot of very, very serious and painful infections of the skin, which was completely different from what we would see in health care.’

With bacteria constantly evolving and developing resistance to conventional antibiotics, doctors have been forced to ‘reach back into the archives’ and ‘dust off’ older, more dangerous cures like colistin.

WHAT ARE ANTIBIOTICS?

Antibiotics, also known as antibacterials, are types of drugs that destroy or slow down the growth of bacteria.

Antibiotics are used to treat infections caused by bacteria. Bacteria are microscopic organisms, some of which may cause illness.

Before bacteria can multiply and cause symptoms, the body's immune system can usually destroy them. But if white blood cells fail to fight off the infection, antibiotics can help.

The first antibiotic was penicillin, which was discovered in 1928 by Scottish Professor Alexander Fleming.

Such penicillin-related antibiotics as ampicillin, amoxicillin and benzylpenicilllin are widely used today to treat a variety of infections.

Source: Medical News Today

‘It’s very toxic,’ said Srinivasan. ‘We don’t like to use it. It damages the kidneys. But we’re forced to use it in a lot of instances.’

The expert went on, saying that the discovery of antibiotics in 1928 by Professor Alexander Fleming revolutionized medicine, allowing doctors to treat hundreds of millions of people suffering from illnesses that had been considered terminal for centuries.

Antibiotics also paved the way for successful organ transplants, chemotherapy, stem cell and bone marrow transplantations - all the procedures that weaken the immune system and make the body susceptible to infections.

However, the CDC director explained that people have fueled the fire of bacterial resistance through rampant overuse and misuse of antibiotics.

‘These drugs are miracle drugs, these antibiotics that we have, but we haven’t taken good care of them over the 50 years that we’ve had them,’ he told Frontline.

Srinivasan added that pharmaceutical companies are at least partially to blame for this problem, saying that they have neglected the development of new and more sophisticated antibiotics that could keep up with bacterial resistance because ‘there’s not much money to be made’ in this field.

Damn Right!

With all the ignorant Stanford, Harvard and Wharton MBA "bean counters" who know nothing about actual manufacturing it is a relief to have someone who actually understands the products. Increasingly rare.

Patents

I could do an extended legal analysis of the law on patent ownership but at this point feel that there is a continuing “unhealthy” element to the discussion, including the continuing assault on Parents. She is correct on the law and on the prevailing legal interpretations and the fact-specific aspect of ownership. Any mediocre lawyer can pull a few generalized case headnotes out of the “blue” and make an argument. That almost sounds intelligent but is misleading. The analysis that Parents offered represents controlling law in the US and that is all I am going to say on this subject because the continual sniping in my judgment harms the company.

If an employee invents something but that employee has no responsibility to do so by contract obligation then just because the product may improve or work well with the company's existing technology does not mean the company owns it. “Selling” oneself by agreeing to function as an executive or administrative employee means that you are providing services within the scope of that defined function. If you (secretary, janitor, treasurer, CFO, CEO etc.) happen to figure out something beneficial that perhaps other people in that specific company might have thought about but did not, then that creation of knowledge—patented or otherwise--is NOT within your "job description". Fiduciary duties only exist within the role of those serving specific functions and those functions dictate the kinds of duties that are owed. A generalized or all-encompassing non-specific fiduciary duty does not exist simply because someone is employed by a company. If the company lacked a specific agreement with but paid extra to the person inventing the technology for the purpose of improving its technology then ownership could arise, just as it could if it paid the patent fees for the development. My clear understanding is that none of those conditions exist.

If there is a specific agreement in which all or part of an employee's responsibility is to develop intellectual property then, sure the company owns it. That is what provides NanoLogix's ownership of the BNP etc. patent technology developed in conjunction with a formerly employed individual whose specific responsibility was to develop and improve NanoLogix’s technology. The same applies to subsequently employed technical personnel with those responsibilities—because it is their specified function and role. But if an ordinary employee who is otherwise performing the core job for which he/she was hired (secretary, box boy, custodian, receptionist or CEO) happens to use their brain to come up with a "better mousetrap" it is clear in the law that person owns the intellectual property rights. Parents is correct on this and I, for one, would hate to have idiotic "pot stirring" endanger what I consider at this point to be a key part of NanoLogix's competitive advantage. The reality is that NanoLogix owns an exclusive license giving it the rights to use and sell the packaging technology domestically and globally. That is a company asset of great worth and the continuous bickering does not help the shareholders.

Tuberculosis Failures and the WHO


Thousands with tuberculosis not given treatment to stay alive, warns WHO

Global failure to tackle multidrug-resistant tuberculosis costing lives, say experts, as three in four cases go undiagnosed

Share 15
inShare0
Email

Sarah Boseley
theguardian.com, Wednesday 23 October 2013 06.43 EDT

MDG : Tuberculosis patient in New Delhi, India
Tuberculosis treatments need to be shorter, more effective and less damaging for patients, say experts. Photograph: Associated Press

Approximately 16,000 people were diagnosed with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in 2012 but were not given the treatment they needed to stay alive and prevent the spread of the disease, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has said.

While there has been some progress – with a drop in cases to 8.6m in 2012, from 8.7m in 2011, and in deaths from 1.4m in 2011 to 1.3m in 2012 – a report by the WHO says there are serious concerns about the estimated 3 million people with TB who are not receiving treatment because they live in remote rural areas, and about the spread of drug-resistant strains.

The director of its TB programme, Dr Mario Raviglione, warned on Wednesday of a public health crisis, while Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), the international medical organisation, described the figures as shocking.

As the problem of MDR-TB grows, so do the waiting lists for the expensive and lengthy courses of treatment – it can take two years to cure somebody. Many countries are not getting high cure rates as a result.

"The unmet demand for a full-scale and quality response to multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is a real public health crisis," says Raviglione. "It is unacceptable that increased access to diagnosis is not being matched by increased access to MDR-TB care. We have patients diagnosed but not enough drug supplies or trained people to treat them. The alert on antimicrobial resistance has been sounded; now is the time to act to halt drug-resistant TB."

An estimated 450,000 people contracted MDR-TB in 2012, the WHO says. The largest numbers were in China, India and Russia, but three in four estimated cases remained undiagnosed.

Dr Philipp Du Cros, infectious disease specialist at MSF, said: "These shocking figures are an indictment of the global failure to tackle drug-resistant tuberculosis head-on. People are paying for this failure with their lives … Unless we take urgent action, we will continue to see an increase in harder-to-treat drug-resistant strains of TB."

He called for more resources and better drugs to tackle the crisis. "To save lives, we urgently need governments, donors, and the Global Fund to properly resource the treatment of this deadly disease. We urgently need more research to make treatments for TB shorter, more effective and less damaging for patients. Patients with drug-resistant TB currently face an agonising two-year ordeal, taking large quantities of very harsh drugs with horrific side effects. Even then, it's only a flip of a coin chance that treatment will be successful."

The report calls for drug-resistant TB to be considered a public health crisis."In high MDR-TB burden countries, increased capacity to diagnose MDR-TB must be matched with supplies of quality drugs and scaled-up country capacity to deliver effective treatment and care," it says. "This will require high-level political will and leadership and more collaboration among partners, including drug regulatory authorities, donor and technical agencies, civil society and the pharmaceutical industry."

The 3 million missed cases must be reached, the WHO says. People who are HIV positive and have TB must be given antiretroviral drug treatment. The funding gap must be closed – an extra $2bn a year is needed on top of the $6bn made available for TB in 2013. "Progress remains fragile and could be reversed without adequate funding," the report warns.

I wonder

If I were a larger company that wanted to take over a smaller company with a "breakthrough" technology in a potentially massive sales context, how would I go about obtaining the technology at the most favorable price? I might--if I were ruthless and savvy--try to work over a reasonably short period of time to reduce the price of the company's shares so that I saved my own company a great deal of money. Of course this is absolutely hypothetical.

But assume a smaller breakthrough technology company had 100 million shares outstanding and they were selling at $10.00 per share. If I paid that on behalf of my larger company the cost of acquisition would be $1 billion. But if over time I employed a strategy to drive the company with the breakthrough technology down to $2.50 per share then the acquisition would only cost $250 million and I have saved my larger company $750 million. I have also increased the probability that the smaller company will be happy to have the offer because of the psychology that my strategy created. I think I get a promotion.

Of course this is totally hypothetical and I am simply "thinking out loud" for my own amusement.

"Huh?" I don't even think about you

I was responding to Leroy Kelly, who was a much better running back than Trent Richardson. And so was Ernest Byner for that matter. It isn't all about you, Dude. So "chill".

Temporary debt financing prevents share dilution

When it is anticipated that share prices will rise significantly, it is a wonderful thing that temporary operating needs and cash flow requirements are funded by debt rather than equity. It is a great thing for existing shareholders and limits dilution. Otherwise it gives new investors a premium because they can buy in when the price is considerably lower than expected to be as the company moves into the black. Temporary debt financing (when possible) is actually a very desirable and responsible strategy operating in the interests of all of us WHO ACTUALLY OWN NANOLOGIX SHARES.

Thanks, much appreciated

I just ask myself, what would Warren Buffett do, and the wisdom I gained from watching hours of his video lessons informs everything I do and say. After all, that is the "true" and forever lasting spirit of Capitalism. [smile]

(I Think) in "the Black" or very soon

My impression is sales are increasing at a good rate. The technology is superior by far. There are solid markets in the US and ones with extremely significant potential in Eastern Europe, Middle East, South Asia where the technological "fixation" is small and the capital and expertise for the high tech stuff is limited. It's not going to hit Parents' target in the next three months but it is going to evolve on a substantial upward curve. I do have to agree it is quite strange to experience "investors" who seek to undermine their own alleged investment. I wonder what Warren Buffett would do in that situation?

Yep. Agreement.

Almost (but not quite) clever, Leroy

I was simply stating a guess and opinion. You seemed somewhat more precise. But I have no desire to get into a meaningless verbal conflict with you so let's leave things where they are and hope.

Leroy:

This sounds like "insider" knowledge. Congratulations. Who you been talking to? I certainly hope for a positive outcome of the kind you describe but what is your info on this? I would not mind selling for something like $1.00 per share to "clear" investments and move on. The only problems I see is that the tech is wonderful and requires a large-scale marketer to reap the profits and I would prefer to count $$ before another company manipulates and "trumps" the tech leading to years of litigation. Perhaps someone will come in and offer a cash and shares option for NNLX stock? Do you know anything in that regard?

Smile, and think happy thoughts

I'm not the one who urged a course of action that would cost a fortune and didn't understand the dynamics of the situation. I'm not the one who did the "pom, pom" cheering. What I ask is that people 1: do their homework, 2. understand the technology, 3. understand the difficulties involved in breaking into industries already dominated by very aggressive suppliers, and 4. understand the implications of continually "trashing" the company and its leadership. 'Nuff said!

I think your last three lines are good

Go with your own advice. I would prefer to be professionally positive about the situation rather than offering a continuous stream of negative thoughts that creates a psychology that undermines my own investment. I wrote in the message Parents refers to about why I think things are positive. Those are my thoughts. How quickly the company reaches profitability is something we do not know but my guess would be later in this year. By the way, I have no idea what the developmental costs and "to-market" timing of the N-Assay technology happen to be but that can be an important factor in a need to raise a little investment in that specific undertaking. I also think that the "financial" post in the NanoLogix PR was a mistake and that the rapid removal was wise. Remember, as you indicated, your last three lines are your best so wave your "pom poms" and cheer. Of course, your admission that you know nothing about law firms after stating that the company should go in that direction probably is a good point to think about.

Parents Is Right

Ride it or not, the issue is an uncertain "now" that does not fit into predictive models. JK Rowling received 40 rejections because of "fit". There are reasonable reasons to walk away from this investment based on historical formulae. Do it if that is what you require! No problem. But please do not try to fit the rest of us into analyses that have nothing to do with the company just as might said for Xerox, and many others. With few exceptions I think people are able to receive the value of their investment versus their expectations. But some of wonder why people try to force THIS into THAT when it simply does not fit. I don't know where this is going but I see a need, a market, and a seriously competitive situation in which "push comes to shove" in the petri dish, agar, longevity packaging context and I, every day, Thank God for the exclusive license as the company adjusts and adapts to a highly resistant but changing market.

Have a spare $350,000 (minimum high risk opener)?

If you know anything about law firms such as Arnold & Porter you have to know that just to pursue what you are suggesting would require hundreds of thousands of dollars without any guarantee that the process would produce positive results. It is odd to hear suggestions that a small company with fewer than ten employees that is building sales revenues to make it into the black in a few more months, that appears to be devoting scarce resources to expanding sales and developing the N-Assay product technology is supposed to divert a very large sum of money into the "black hole" that is represented by a large US law firm. I can think of few things that would ruin the company faster at the very point it has realigned itself to expand sales and developed a potentially important new product. This does not mean that after the company has done what needs to be done over the next months that with an established revenue history and demonstrated sales that something should not be pursued if a "flush" company approaches it. But in my experience unless you have the demonstrated record that I think seems to be evolving now, if a company puts itself on the market it is seen like "bloody chum" to Jaws.

Informative Update on NanoLogix Site

I just read a new informative update on the status of the company's technologies (BNP, BNF, N-Assay & Packaging). The results described are pretty amazing. The descriptions helped me gain a better sense of where the advantages are and what are the most relevant markets, along with the scale of emerging markets. The patent and license updates were helpful also. I hope a great deal of time is going into marketing these incredible products. One of the most interesting parts of the update was the analysis of the critical limitations of PCR and other competitive technologies and the accompanying explanation of NanoLogix's technological advantages.

The NanoLogix advantages lie in speed of detection and in being able to detect live organisms far earlier than PCR. This is something that is vital in a world where there is a great need for antibiotic interventions that are specifically targeted to the particular organism rather than the generic and massive "one size fits all" infusions of antibiotics that actually end up increasing bacterial resistance in the overall system.

It also strikes me that the NanoLogix technologies (BNP & BNF coupled with packaging) offer a point-of-delivery and diagnosis capability at low cost that is very important in nations not anchored to (or able to afford) large scale acquisition of $100,000 machines either at all or at relatively remote smaller cities and rural sites. Along with this the N-Assay technology currently in the developmental stage sounds quite exciting, even though there is an apparent need for resources to fund the work. As you all know, a company that stands pat often gets passed up by competitors so it is good to hear of this new technological research and product.

It was also good to read in a post on this site the other day that the past month was the best revenue period for sales. Of course I would like to know details and I hope the figure is large and increasing steadily as some of us thought it would. But as I have said at another time I can wait on that until later in the year.