Thank you very much for the detailed response.

1) not all nasopharyngeal swaps have to go in 6" deep though. I had a flu test in Jan and they just swabbed near the nose opening. The reason I asked is because I think the first player with a less invasive test is going to win big market share. Was hoping maybe these guys were it.

2) thanks for the info

3) I thought some of the recent posts said ~17M rev on 6M tests? That would come out closer to $3 per. Either way I agree yearly rev should approach $100M. That's cool that they also get rev from test machine. Hopefully we get more clarity on margins soon, but I'm honestly not as concerned with earnings at this point compared to revenue. The company currently valued at $600M is 6x future rev which seems a bit rich to me but perhaps worth it to Abbott. I just ask myself if I'm Abbott, do I pay $600M for this? I think the answer is normally yes, but what happens to test demand after a vaccine is out? In other words, valuation of a company like this would normally project 5-10 year return, but if vaccine is avail after 1 year, that becomes tricky. Perhaps Abbott won't care and just wants to save face.

Full disclosure: I own a very small amount of CODX as of 5/1

Hello, new investor catching up on DD. Some ?'s:

1) does CODX test probe 6" into the nasal passage like other tests I've seen?

2) besides 100% specificity, anything else differentiate CODX's test from the ~3 dozen other tests out there

3) what price point are they selling the tests for and how much does it cost them to make? (based on some other posts this morning it seems like ~$2.5-$3 revenue / test?)

Thanks in advance

Hello, new investor catching up on DD. Some ?'s:

1) does CODX test probe 6" into the nasal passage like other tests I've seen?

2) besides 100% specificity, anything else differentiate CODX's test from the ~3 dozen other tests out there

3) what price point are they selling the tests for and how much does it cost them to make?

Thanks in advance

I think it's funny how many ppl on this board seem to think that the posts on this board are affecting the share price. Investors with enough money to really move the needle on this thing are too smart to make their decisions based on any of these comments - they'll do their own DD.

I also think it's really funny that ppl have accused 3rd eye of making multiple accounts and trying to drive the price down because I'd be willing to bet that some of the bulls on here have posted from multiple accounts and are trying to prop the price up.

I don't own any shares (anymore) but I read this board (1) because it's been pretty entertaining, and (2) it's an interesting lesson in investor sentiment and psychology.

I'm honestly not convinced though because the link he sent me says this:

"The FDA has not given a specific approval for the administration of naltrexone by having it implanted under the skin of an individual."

Which aligns with that Aetna FAQ.

And re-reading his email, he kind of dodges the question by talking about pharmacy compounding of FDA approved ingredients, but no matter how it's compounded, naltrexone is still not approved for implanting under the skin - only oral and injected.

Here is the response I got from Brady about the implant's status with the FDA and why/how it has been used to generate revenue thus far:

Pharmacy compounding of FDA approved ingredients is regulated state by
state. You can research that online and also start with this link on our
website below.

http://www.beataddiction.com/faq/

Yes, companies prefer to pay consultant fees rather than salary, but employees want it the other way around. So why would Brady and Co. want to pay MORE taxes?

If they really wanted to save the company ~6% on the SS/Medicare cost, they could have just taken a little bit of a lower salary.

So this whole "tax purposes" argument as an explanation for why Brady and Co. setup corps doesn't make any sense.

I just emailed him. I'll let you know if I get a response.

Ok maybe I'll try later but I have to get back to work now

Hi Kiz, yes in my experience there are 3 main ways to raise funding for clinical trials: (1) internal (pretty much limited to big companies only), (2) venture capital, and (3) grants.

But why would BICX wait all of this time to pursue funding for FDA approval now? They've been around for 6 years. Maybe they have been pursuing funding all this time with no luck? That happened to the last company I worked for before we went under. I'm not suggesting that's what is about to happen here, but the problem is no one seems to really know what's going on here after the big injectable misdirection play.

Instead everyone seems to just be hoping that the recent buzz around the opioid epidemic will somehow equate to grant money for BICX, but grant money to fight this epidemic has always been around the only difference now is that a bunch of people in Washington are blowing a bunch of hot air about it.

Not some but ALL legitimate doctors and clinics won't use products not approved by the FDA. So I ask again, how have clinics been using the BICX implant for the past ~6 years? I find it really hard to believe they could get away with operating illegally for that long, so the only other answer is that FDA approval is not needed but that doesn't seem right either. Something is not adding up here

The implant is what originally drew me to BICX way back in 2011. I still don't understand why they put the cart in front of the horse with the injectable. Seems like a significant misstep that has put things back at square one.

Regardless, the FDA approval of the implant has always confused me. At first I thought it was approved only to find out that only naltrexone is approved. Then I think someone said that the implant doesn't need FDA approval because the FDA only cares about the active ingredients and not specific formulations. That seemed to make sense to me but now the big news is that BICX is going for FDA approval of the implant.

But isn't the implant where most of their revenue has come from thus far? So how/why has it been used to generate revenue if it really needs FDA approval?

Considering the mortality rate of naltrexone implants is not 0 and still under study, using it without FDA approval would be grossly irresponsible. So what am I missing?

First, my writing style is nothing like that guy's. Second, look at my old posts. I was a healthy skeptic even when I owned the stock. Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Maybe you should be asking some of the same questions. Third, I'm not bitter - I made a bunch of money off of this stock. Maybe take a look in the mirror. Fourth, 3 months is a long time - I've since re-informed myself. Still a lot of debt and no significant EDGE in a difficult business.

Thanks Fido. Really looking forward to this season! Could be magical

I read a couple of quarterly reports since then. And I enjoy following this board. Also, I wasn't trolling and it's a free country so I can change my mind about not posting

I do believe you've elevated the discussion beyond uninformed dreaming as well - unfortunately and sadly for them it's falling on deaf ears even as the share price falls through the floor. Oh well. At least if they're smart they can average down and unload at the next pump like I did a few years ago. Feel bad for all the recovering alcoholics though that got suckered into this thing and that won't know when to get out. Anyways, thank you for making this board even more entertaining.

Ok I won't comment anymore after this since I don't have a stake anymore - wasn't saying anyone else's decision was poor because I don't know the future, was just saying that my decision was poor way back in 2011 and thought that might be useful.

Good luck

Honestly I stopped following this board after I sold in 2014, but for some reason google just started sending me updates about this stock a little over a week ago - some new suggestions feature that must have seen my internet history here.

Also, insurance companies don't get enticed to cover anything - they get forced. They are in the business of only giving out money if they absolutely have to.

Yea but other companies already have injectable naltrexone. It says so right in our summary of the company on this forum. The only "edge" BICX had was the implant so that addicts don't have to be responsible for taking their medication.

Also, the demand for alcohol treatment is roughly the same today as it was 3 and 6 years ago - the last 2 times this company's stock was temporarily in the .20's and .30's. Their problem is not demand - it's their inability to make money off of their product(s). Doesn't look like they have any new clinics since 3 years ago - where are they even going to sell the injection if it gets approved?

0.02's not that long gone, and not too far away in the future either. This stock has dropped from the 0.20's to the 0.02's twice before, what makes anyone think it's not gonna happen again? Just because of FDA? C'mon, they already have an FDA approved implant. Another product isn't what this company needs. Cash flow is what they need!

Might as well wait to revisit the idea until we hit the 0.02's again

Maybe it has to do with this company's debt and lack of profits

Not surprising IMO. Last couple of financial reports were not good so I personally expect a steady decline until some good news comes out.

This chart is not looking good anymore. 50 day MA crashing down towards the 200 day MA. Somethings gonna give in terms of PPS from technical reasons alone before any new revenue numbers come out over 2 months from now...

It just went on a major run over the last 6 months. 0.02 to 0.20+. The run is over.

Maybe because they lost a million dollars last quarter with revenue down y/y

this stock will rise when revenue numbers go up and expenses go down. Simple as that.

Hi Sir Lawrence Wildman,

I too was foolishly looking for a quick play on this stock a few years ago. I bought in April 2011 right after it spiked up to 0.49. I thought I was patient because I waited for it to come down to 0.25. I could not have been more disappointed when it dropped all the way down into the 0.02's in the following years. However it taught me a valuable lesson in investing... never buy a stock looking for a quick play! I doubled down in the 0.02's and now have quadrupled my total original investment, which taught me another valuable lesson... never buy a stock unless you truly believe in it and are fully prepared to buy more when it seemingly starts going down the toilet.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't be disappointed if your position in this stock turns into a long one. Likely, you will profit much more than if you had flipped a quickie.

SanFran

Dream big, maxed out on BICX? Say it ain't so!

Wait, so the implant is not approved by the FDA yet?!

Thanks for posting this. Sounds like a dog ate my homework excuse:


"The Registrant is unable to file, without unreasonable effort and expense, its Form 10-K Annual Report for the annual report ended December 31, 2013 because the Registrant's auditor has not completed their review of the Form 10-K"

He is probably a bot or getting paid to post anything regardless of content.

What is a 10k anyway? I always get confused. Is it the 4th qrt report from last year or the full year report from last year?

Either way, it seems unlikely that any of the financials will reflect the recent PR because it will be focused a bit too far in the past for this fast moving company.

Just quickly confirmed through some google research that it is indeed the same LLC that BICX did a deal with last July 31, 2013. This is huge in my mind and any PR issued tomorrow will not do it justice because this means the Midwest LLC is so happy with BICX that they want rights to more states. Last July, the LOI was just for Nebraska. Now they want and get Oklahoma, Missouri, and Minnesota.

My biggest doubt up to this point with BICX was the problem in Florida. It was not clear to me personally that the root cause of the disagreement between BICX and Florida was not BICX fault. Now I have some serious re-assurance that their program is for real and that they are able to follow through with their promises to their customers/franchisees.

Is this an agreement with the same LLC that already had rights to Nebraska in a previous LOI? If so, that would be even better news than an agreement with a new LLC, because it means the Nebraska LLC is happy enough with BICX and their program to already want rights to more states. This would be in direct contrast with the Florida party that sued BICX.

I think it's more like $40,000 per patient in reimbursement, but BICX only sees 10% of that as royalty from franchised clinics. It's unclear to me how many company owned clinics they have right now but I think it is 0 or 1. In other words, I predict almost all of their revenue will come in the form of royalty payments from franchises, which is more like $4000/patient. That being said, it doesn't matter to me how they increase their revenue as long as it is compounding.

To support itsdetatti's logic with an even more optimistic outlook on PPS, check this out: A company with just $13M of revenue last year just IPO'd with a market cap of $1.4B which popped up to $3B by the end of the first day of trading:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/castlight-health--most-overpriced-ipo-of-the-century-134049448.html

Hi Fido,

I agree with you that it is suspicious. The only reasons I can think of to raise pps is (1) planned dilution in the near to help raise more money for expansion or (2) exercising their $0.015/share employee options. I'm sure there are other reasons as well but I don't know them.

I didn't understand where your projections were coming from because you didn't explain them before! Thank you for elaborating. I agree with you for the most part, but they need to "show me the money" at this point. Hopefully this next 10k is better than the last one.

I like your optimism but no where in your projections are you accounting for the float. With over 125M shares floating and 200M shares authorized, $1 pps is ~100x revenue from this past year. At $10 a share, this company would be valued at over $1B.

I'm not saying those share prices aren't possible, but the share price itself means nothing w/o the float when considering valuation of a company.

Lastly, the pps growth will be dependent more-so on the growth of the company, not the exchange that the shares are traded on.