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.
What are "normal business hours" for Dennis Charter, CEO of Radient Pharmaceuticals? On which continent is he located?
According to Whois, Mr. Charter's website www.ebank.ac is based in Hong Kong. How many websites does Mr. Charter have? How many businesses is he trying to run?
He is able to keep a placeholder page alive for these two businesses:
http://www.ebank.ac/
http://dennischarter.com/
Why can't he upload a placeholder web page for radient-diagnostics.com? It appears that of these three businesses, the Radient business is the lowest priority.
Same result when I sent an email to dmaclellan@radient-pharma.com -- it bounced back within five minutes with this error:
The domain name of the email address is not valid
Check the "radient-pharma.com" part of the email address for misspellings or missing letters.
Anyone who doubts this can try it themselves.
Radient-pharma is dead. I don't think MacLellan is President, I don't think there is any current attempt to restructure or reorganize Radient, and I don't think RXPC shares will ever trade again.
I don't believe message-board "Investigative Longs" who say otherwise and I don't believe what CEO's say in emails or PR's or interviews. I only believe what I read in SEC filings. I believe Radient Pharmaceuticals is insolvent and their stock registration is revoked because that's what the company stated in their final 8K.
The odds of rising from THOSE ashes are astronomically poor. I think that anyone who read that 8K and still held onto RXPC stock does not understand the stock market.
This is all fun and games emailing MacLellan and trying to track down Charter and thinking wishfully on message boards, but I don't see how RXPC could be deader than this. "Insovlent" is not a vague word. It is a specific word. And Stock Registration Revocation is not a vague concept.
Please post it here.
He said he wasn't President of Radient, didn't he?
I think you should email him again and ask when your RXPC shares are going to be worth 11 cents.
update -- my email to radient-pharma.com bounced back after 10 minutes.
Here is the error message:
"The domain name of the email address is not valid. Check the 'radient-pharma.com' part of the email address for misspellings or missing letters."
So "Dougie Mac" is not going to reply from radient-pharma.com -- not that I think he is going to reply, period.
I think Bloomberg should update their info anyway. Mr. Cheezepuff is doing just as much at Radient as anyone else.
I just sent a test email to cheezepuff@radient-pharma.com. It didn't bounce back - it "went thru."
Try it yourself.
That tells me something as to who is actually calling the shots at Radient. Somebody better tell Bloomberg to update their info. I think Mr. Cheezepuff is the new CEO but I'll wait to hear back from him.
"Ah, Mr. Cheezepuff, we meet again. But this time, the advantage is mine."
Who really cares about William and GCDx? They have nothing to do with Radient and RXPC. Anyone who wants to invest in William and GCDX can just go to Fundable and do it and RXPC won't be involved.
All this old anecdotal history about Radient and Provista and Gartner from 2011 or 2009 or WHENEVER is just pudding. Currently, RXPC is revoked and the Radient corporation is voided and there's no evidence of anyone trying to change that.
The odds against RXPC shares ever being worth anything ever again, even .0001, are insurmountable. A lottery ticket would be a much better bet.
GA you said:
"Don't you find it strange that the skeptics can't find Radient's new assay...Matter of fact, they can not even find Provista's assay via William Gartner."
Radient doesn't have a new assay. I can't find what doesn't exist.
And nobody can find active Radient patents or patent applications because they don't exist either.
And why look for Provista assays? They would have nothing to do with Radient or RXPC. Provista is not involved with, working with, or planning to work with or take over Radient.
Throwing pudding around is fine if that's how a person wants to spend his or her time, but I am looking for the meat in this takeover rumor and there is none. Just pudding.
This pudding about secret patents contain no proof. There is no such thing as a "secret patent." If a patent application was re-opened it would not have the status "LAPSED."
Radient did not apply for a patent in Australia in 2011, despite what Radient's CEO said in a press release. If Radient had applied for a patent in 2011 the Australian patent system would show it.
Radient has no active patents or patent applications for DR70/onko-sure anywhere in the world (except maybe Japan). To refute this, cite a patent number or patent application number that is active. The lack of that citation is an admission that such a patent or patent application doesn't exist.
A CEO can say things while standing on the bridge of his warship, but when that ship is anchored in Safe Harbor, his comments have to be taken lightly. The Radient CEO said many things in PR's that never came true. To his credit, only one Class Action arose from those PR's.
But the Radient warship isn't anchored any more -- it sunk. It's laying on the bottom of Safe Harbor now. And the rats have left the ship -- who knows what continent the rats inhabit now.
Let's clear up the skepticism.
Please cite the Australian patent application number for the Radient patent application that is still active.
Failure to do this is an admission that there isn't one.
the Radient-Diagnostics site is WordPress. No company that wants to be taken seriously uses WordPress. I don't understand why they would change "Coming Soon" to BROKEN but you may be right -- Perhaps they were tired of Investigative Longs and Lenders trying to contact them. Nice point about the AMDL site.
I doubt we will ever see another Radient website. IMO, if we ever see anything again it will be a new business venture for some kind of "Cancer Saliva Test" site in Hong Kong or Australia, and the name Radient will probably be conspicuously absent.
I think the lenders accepted their fate long ago. When they threatened spoilage lawsuits and Mac responded with a threat of bankruptcy, I think they realized they'd been had.
I will be shocked if GCDx ever sells a single DR70 test. "Fundable" seems like a last-ditch financing effort to me. I doubt a VS will ever get done. The lack of a patent makes the Lung Cancer Test a poor risk for private investors, IMO.
The CEO of GCDx has forecast a DR70 sales launch date at least four times that I know of -- all have passed... A CEO's job is to placate shareholders and press the flesh and say optimistic things to reporters and journalists, all while standing on the Bridge of a docked boat in Safe Harbor. "Coming Soon... anticipate..... expect...." All pudding.
The lack of proof is in *this* kind of pudding!
What is the Australian patent application number of this "Australian Patent" we are waiting for?
If there is an active patent or patent application in Australia it would have a patent application number. I don't believe there is one but I welcome being proven wrong.
Anyone Anywhere can use Radient's DR70 at will. The lack of patents dictates this. Provista has no interest in doing so and Jade couldn't get regulatory approval in China but UNI-Pharma *is* using Radient's DR-70 at will right NOW. Who could dispute that?
The one place I'm not sure about is Japan, and I say that only because I can't verify whether any patent information in Japan. Everywhere else, it's easy to verify: Radient has no patents anywhere for the DR70/onko-sure test.
Anyone wanting to dispute this needs only to cite an active patent number or patent application number.
Radient Pharmaceuticals does not have an active patent application in Australia.
CEO's say things that can be misconstrued and misinterpreted. Bottom line: if there is an active patent application for onko-sure or DR70 in the Australian patent system, what is the patent application number?
It doesn't matter what the Radient CEO said in a 2011 press release. If Radient had submitted a patent application in 2011 it would show up in the Australian PTO System. It's not there. Maybe he was talking about the Dirks/Charter/Brown application, maybe he was talking about an application they were working on, maybe he got the countries wrong, who knows, but the fact is, Radient Pharmaceuticals does not have an active patent application in Australia.
Not that it matters to the new Radient Officers and Directors. Nobody else is going to try to manufacture or sell DR70 in Australia or New Zealand. They have nothing to worry about except: nobody has been successful selling the test since it was first marketed in Brazil in 1996.
I think the most interesting info on the Aussie patent application regarding Onko Sure is the following:
"LAPSED"
Very telling.
Radient site is NOT "intentionally not up." That error message is not intentional.
GCDx website is up -- look on the "About Us" page - they updated that page with the BusinessWire PR.
Provista website, when it changes, is not going to mention Radient.
Fortis does not know the "Investigative Long Shareholders" exist. One of the "Investigative Longs" should contact Fortis and remind them that they are taking over Radient Pharmaceuticals.
And the Radient Shareholders, market-wise savvy investors that they are, will reject the first offer.
Nothing less than 11 cents a share, right?
It's great that the wise men of this MB have figured out the details of the Radient Takeover.
The next step for these "go to guys" is to contact SRL, UNI, Fortis, Provista, the Australians, and William Gartner and explain the details to THEM.....
Because I'm quite certain these entities are not aware of this takeover of Radient.
Pudding is one word for it, I guess.
Any email that SRL sent regarding Radient or CIT is in the public domain. A company that sends an email to a non-employee has to assume that the email will be shared, copied, forwarded, distributed, and reprinted. It's in the public domain.
If SRL is "developing" CIT and they divulged that in an email to a RXPC shareholder or anyone else in the world, it's no longer private. But there must be a miscommunication in that email thread -- SRL must not have understood the question, because there is simply no way that CIT is being developed by anyone, anywhere.
"Who were the lenders selling to?" Pinksheet gamblers, newbies, and existing shareholders who were trying to average down.
"We now know we are being restructured..." Disagree, all we know is, the entire BOD and all Officers resigned and appointed some unknowns who were given the task of trying to restructure. We don't know if the new BOD and Officers made any attempt -- they cut the phone lines, took down the website, and disappeared.
"We are still a company operating quasi-private." Nothing QUASI about it -- Radient is private and I doubt it's operating.
"We are making money. " How? Selling what? Radient made money in 2008 when they still had Jade but every other year they lost money. $85 million a year since 2009, to be exact. Doubtful that they turned THAT around.
"We are paying bills." That's a new concept for Radient. I think the word "insolvent" means they are NOT paying bills.
Radient is still in business?
How is Radient still in business with a void corporation, no office space, no website, and no way to contact the company? Even if I wanted to buy DR70 from them and sell it somewhere, I couldn't find them.
Forget the revoked shares (I have). Let's focus on the idea that Radient is still in business. On what continent is this happening?
The SEC filing from 2012 that describes the UNI agreement states that the Agreement terminates when the last DR70 patent expires. That hapopened. The agreement is terminated. UNI is not paying Radient anything and never will again. The DR70 patent is going to change to ABANDONED in a few months.
Provista website will make it official soon, as per their promise to give us a "new corporate look," that they are not involved with Radient or RXPC or onko-sure or DR70 or CIT or SRL or UNI-Pharma.
When the Provista website is updated and there is no mention of RXPC or Radient or SRL or UNI, what does that mean for the takeover theory? How will the RXPC takeover theory be adjusted when Provista is removed from the equation?
SRL is not developing CIT. Nobody is developing CIT. Radient wrote off CIT as worthless at the end of 2010. There is no evidence anywhere that CIT is anything but dead and dormant.
Radient bought CIT in the year 2000 and didn't try to develop it until 2010 when they hired Dr. Chang, the inventor, to work on it under NuVax. After just one month NuVax abandoned CIT, Radient declared it worthless, and NuVax started working on Dr. Chang's newer cancer vaccine. Unfortunately, Radient stopped paying the U of FL and Dr. Chang and Mr. Bhatia, and that project also stopped.
We have determined that CIT is still protected by Radient patent. If SRL is now "developing" CIT, how did SRL get the rights to CIT without Radient releasing an 8K?
Terry Lin and freia Wei do not mention taking over Radient or merging with Radient in this interview.
Uni-Pharma's agreement with Radient has terminated because the last DR70 patent expired. Uni-Pharma may sell DR70 in the future but that will not help RXPC shareholders.
If "SRL is selling the tests to the public and Uni-Pharma is now the distributor..." that means UNI and SRL are working together without being involved in any way with Radient. That means there is no reason for either of them to take over or merge with Radient. This would prove that the takeover rumor is false.
But I don't believe that SRL is selling onko-sure to the public. I am the public -- why can't I buy onko-sure from SRL? Why did they remove it from their website if they are still selling it?
If SRL is selling onko-sure, where can I, the public, buy it?
If "Onko Sure is a very important part of [SRL] moving forward," why did SRL stop selling onko-sure?
SRL is not involved with Radient in any way. SRL never had a license agreement with Radient -- they obtained their DR70 from a different source.
SRL sold DR70 for half price -- $49 a test - and when they ran out they stopped selling DR70 instead of ordering more. I see no reason to believe that SRL today thinks "Onko Sure is a very important part of [SRL] moving forward."
One thing is for certain: if Fortis was interested in taking over Radient, it would have happened.
If Fortis and Provista wanted to merge, we'd have heard about that too. The problem with bringing a big company like Fortis into a creeping takeover rumor is: big companies don't creep.
Since we have now all agreed that the RXPC shares are in the hands of retail investors and there is no organized takeover, I think the comnclusion is inescapable: the new Directors and Officers were appointed by MacLellan and Christiansen and nobody else was involved. There is no secret group pulling the strings. Nobody is watching or auditing the new Officers and Directors. They can do anything they want with Radient's "assets."
The problem is: Radient has minimal assets. Why did the new Officers and Directors come on board? What do they have to gain? There's no money to pay them and no shares to give them. There's not much to sell -- Remember when Dilek Mir was using shareware to produce PDF's for PR's?
I guess it's a cheap way for the new Officers to acquire DR70 for their saliva test in Hong Kong but DR70 as a blood test has dubious value to begin with.... a saliva test would be less valuable. I question whether they will get funding to launch their saliva test.
They could sell DR70 on alibaba.... THAT MUST BE IT! This is a "BABA play!" Too bad the ticker is revoked, I bet someone could tweet "RXPC BABA Play!" and get the PPS back up to .0004 before the crushing selling pressure killed the rally as it killed the "MJ Play" rumors in the past.
The rumor proponents never explained that, did they -- why, if takeover groups owned so many shares, the MJ Play rumors only got the PPS up to .0004 before the rally died each time when the ASK became a bottomless well of RXPC shares.
DR70 is off patent -- if Fortis wants DR70 they have it right now and they don't have to pay Radient a penny in royalties or licensing fees. Remember the argument that Provista had some kind of non-compete clause with Radient that prevented them from using DR70 for five years? SRL has no such clause because SRL never signed anything with Radient.
If Fortis is taking over Radient, where are the Fortis Schedule 13D's? Fortis is a big company -- I seriously doubt they are playing a cat-and-mouse game of "silent partners" and "hidden 4.99% buyout groups." If Fortis wanted Radient they'd snap their fingers and make it so. The odds of anyone taking over Radient now are poor, but the odds of Fortis taking over Radient are astronomically poor.
19 out of 20 developmental biotechs fail. IMO it's absurd to say that Radient is the 1-in-20 that succeeds after the company declared itself insolvent, revoked its shares, and lost all patent protection for its one marginally marketable product.
We know SRL sold onko-sure briefly in 2013 after they acquired a batch of the tests from Bhatia. They sold those tests for half price and when they ran out, SRL removed onko-sure from their product line.
SRL is not selling onko-sure today. That is the link I am asking for. I want proof that SRL is involved with Radient TODAY and/or is selling onko-sure TODAY.
Many companies tried to sell onko-sure in the past and failed. Those old PR's just prove that onko-sure was a failure worldwide. I want to see proof of anyone selling onko-sure today.
"subsidiary of SRL that does sell Onko-Sure..? Here is the company.. SRL Diagnostics Private Limited. "
I seriously doubt that this subsidiary sells Onko-Sure. Please post evidence to support this statement.
It's one thing to say "I think this subsidiary might sell Onko-Sure." Fine, I disagree, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. But to state it as fact requires evidence to back up the statement.
"Looks like there will be no takeover after all.. Just retail shareholders that own 4.5 billion shares of Radient as living and you stress....."
(direct quote from post 25211)
Agreed. But then who appointed the Australians as Directors and Officers of Radient? And if retail shareholders hold 4.5 billion shares -- which means the Australians and Lenders do not own shares -- what motivation do the Australians and/or Lenders have for returning value to the RXPC shares that were revoked?
If the Australians restructure this company, it makes a lot more sense for them to file for bankruptcy, cancel all existing RXPC shares, and issue new shares to the Lenders and/or the White Knight that finances the restructuring.
What has "Rao V. Mulpuri" got to do with Radient or even SRL? I see no connection. Please help me understand the connection with tangible proof.
I also don't understand the statement "We already know SRL is involved in the mix of WG/Provista/Radient Diagnostics." I don't know that, and I don't BELIEVE that. If someone said "We think SRL is involved in the theoretical mix of WG/Provista/Radient Diagnostics," I couldn't argue with that. But to state that as fact is puzzling. It not only is unproven, it is very unlikely that any of those companies are currently involved with Radient Diagnostics or AMDL or Radient Pharmaceuticals.
I love these historical Radient PR's. They are wonderful examples of why you should never trust PR's from developmental biotech CEO's. Thanks for posting it!
Let’s look closer at this AMDL/Radient PR and determine whether this PR passes the sniff test.
“…given its most recent news announcing the monetization strategy for the Company's China-based subsidiary Jade Pharmaceuticals Inc.;” At the time this PR was released, Radient knew that Jade was not cooperating. The “monetization plan” was a dream.
“…focused on the commercialization of AMDL's proprietary Onko-Sure(TM) In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) cancer test;” Because they had nothing else to sell. And even when the company “focused”
on selling DR70, they failed. Gross revenues were only about 10% of operating costs from the time this PR was released until the end of 2011 when the company announced they couldn’t pay their operational bills.
“In addition to today's rebranding announcement, AMDL completed a note and warrant purchase agreement with St. George Investments, LLC in the amount of approximately $555,555 and a bridge loan with Cantone Asset Management in the amount of $58,000.” This is the one piece of meat in this air sandwich. This was the start of the toxic financing. Instead of selling shares in a private placement, MacLellan borrowed money.
“Radient Pharmaceutical is aggressively collaborating with its China-based management team to determine the highest valuation path and plan for the de-consolidation of Jade Pharmaceuticals Inc. (JPI).” How do you “Agressively collaborate?” Wasn’t this agression the very thing that caused Jade to mutiny in the first place?
“MacLellan continued, "Along with our corporate name change, we have restructured our business and are re-classifying Jade Pharmaceuticals as a business asset rather than a core operating arm of the Company.” Unfortunately, the SEC disagreed with this “re-classification.” It took the SEC two years but they eventually delisted RPC because the $20 million Radient claimed this “business asset” was worth turned out to be $0.
“By late 2011 the Company anticipates launching a next generation version of Onko-Sure(TM) ….. The Company anticipates market launch and commercialization of the introductory Elleuxe(TM) product line targeted to women in the luxury market in late Q1FY10 to early Q2FY10.” “Anticipates” is a red-flag Safe Harbor word in biotech. Everything they “anticipated” and “expected” in this PR never happened.
Conclusion: the sniff test score? "It stinks."
It is highly unlikely that anyone will develop CIT anywhere.
Radient hired Dr. Chang to work on CIT in November 2010 and within four weeks Radient abandoned CIT and licensed Dr. Chang's newer work at the Univ of Florida. Doesn't that make it VERY clear that the inventor of CIT (Chang) and the owner of CIT (Radient) thought it was a waste of resources to develop CIT when Dr. Chang's newer work was available?
If Provista wanted an immunotherapy product in their pipeline, they would license Dr. Chang's work at the Univ of Florida instead of developing CIT, IMO. Anyone would after reading Radient's 2010 and 2011 10K's.
That can't be the Cease and Desist that Guardiangel is talking about.
Post 25103 says "The reason the protection was left to die is because of a Cease and Desist order during the litigation of CIT ownership by the Canucks in Alberta." That makes no sense if the Cease and Desist was in 2003 or earlier because the "protection" being discussed was Radient's patent application submitted after 2003.
Provista is not taking over Radient. The lack of Schedule 13's proves that. Provista is not working with Radient or licensing any of their products. They will tell that to anyone who asks.
Therefore, I see no reason to become "more educated on ProvistaDx/Amarantus/LPath because this is the RXPC message board and those are not relevant to RXPC.
I understand what Cease and Desist means. I just don't believe Radient's lawyers told Radient or anyone else that a Cease and Desist was a good idea.
You state as fact that Radient's lawyers told someone to Cease and Desist. I want to see evidence of this. Whom did Radient or Radient's lawyers tell to Cease and Desist? Please post the evidence.
Cease and Desist? Please post the link. Who and what did Radient's lawyers want to "cease and desist?"
Please explain by posting the link. This is interesting. Who was doing something that Radient's lawyers thought they could stop with a "Cease and Desist?"
The CIT timeline since 2010, then, is:
November 2010: Radient forms NuVax to replace the JTI agreement and work on CIT. They hire Chang and Bhatia.
December 2010: Radient says "As of December 31, 2010, we fully impaired the value of our intangible asset related to this technology."
January 2011: Radient signs an agreement with the Univ of FL to license Chang’s newer cancer vaccine technology.
August 2011: Radient says “On August 29, 2011, due to lack of funding and activity, Umesh Batia resigned as CEO and Director of NuVax. As of the date of this report, we have not generated any revenues and incurred license termination fees expenses for NuVax. Until we can complete funding for NuVax, we will continue to have minimal activity in NuVax.” Chang also quits because of non-payment.
That is all from 10K's and 8K's.
So, thanks for the patent number -- I like being proven wrong by FACTS. Radient has a patent for CIT. That does not mean CIT has value, of course -- I think the timeline events above show very clearly that Radient considers CIT to be worthless.
CIT is patent protected then. Thanks for the correction!
I don't understand why Radient wrote off CIT as worthless in 2010. They certainly didn't need another tax writeoff and they only took about $1 million loss for CIT anyway. The patent still had eight years left at that point?
What a strange maneuver *that* was. A chess game with Dr. Chang and/or the University of Florida, or a chess game with the Canadians? The fact remains: Radient wrote off CIT as worthless and abandoned CIT to work on Dr. Chang's newer technology.
Cease and Desist? Please post the link. Who and what did Radient's lawyers want to "cease and desist?"
Please explain by posting the link. This is interesting. Who was doing something that Radient's lawyers thought they could stop with a "Cease and Desist?"
I know about the lawsuits -- I studied them in detail -- but the lawsuits really are moot now because CIT and NuVax were abandoned by Radient in 2011. Look at this timeline:
April 2010: CIT patent application rejected.
November 2010: CIT patent application abandoned.
November 2010: Radient forms NuVax to replace the JTI agreement and work on CIT. They hire Chang and Bhatia.
December 2010: Radient says "As of December 31, 2010, we fully impaired the value of our intangible asset related to this technology."
January 2011: Radient signs an agreement with the Univ of FL to license Chang’s newer cancer vaccine technology.
August 2011: Radient says “On August 29, 2011, due to lack of funding and activity, Umesh Batia resigned as CEO and Director of NuVax. As of the date of this report, we have not generated any revenues and incurred license termination fees expenses for NuVax. Until we can complete funding for NuVax, we will continue to have minimal activity in NuVax.” Chang also quits because of non-payment.
That is all from 10K's, 8K's, and the USPTO website. I can provide the link, and cite the page number, for all of the above. I trust 10K's and 8K's explicitly.
If the University of Alberta or AcuVector won a lawsuit against Radient now, who would care? The plaintiff would receive nothing in either case. That's not opinion, that is fact, based on the facts I have cited from the SEC filings and the USPTO history.
The topic is "does Radient have patent protection for CIT?" The answer is no, CIT is off patent.
Did Radient abandon the CIT patent application after it received a final rejection? The answer is yes, they abandoned that patent application.
The lawsuits are moot. It doesn't matter whether Radient won or lost the AcuVector lawsuit because Radient has no money so they are not paying ANYONE $20 million. It doesn't matter whether Radient won or lost the University of Alberta lawsuit because CIT is worthless.