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.
No, that is not called projection. It is anything BUT projection. It's a factual statement about what just happened, not a projection of anything I am thinking or feeling onto you.
You shouldn't use a word if you don't know what it means.
I was talking about the company and its device. You simply insulted me without saying anything about the stock, the company, or the company's products. As always.
Now, you calling me "son" -- I know it's just an intended insult, but THAT might be "projection."
You never say anything meaningful.
You just fling feces.
And you think I'm the one wasting time.
Let's revisit the 510(k) documentation for RecoveryRx that JNDouble1 found.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf19/K190251.pdf
In the table on page 2,
"Antenna size" is listed as "12cm or 6 cm diameter."
"Treatment Area" is listed as "110cm2 or 30cm2."
"Peak spatial power density" is the same for both antenna sizes and both treatment areas.
On page 3 it states
You say "when the antenna size is reduced from 12cm to 6cm, the power density within the treatment area increases." But BIEL states in their 510(k) documentation that changing the antenna length does not change the power density output. You are contradicting BIEL's 510(k) documentation. Who is correct? You, or the company?
Regarding the bruise example: Maybe the skin heals faster directly under the wire. Maybe the edge of bruises heal faster with or without an ActiPatch because there's less damage to the skin and body on the edge of a bruise. Regardless -- what has that got to do with BIEL's claim of "50% more power?"
Maybe it's true that changing the shape to a narrower rectangle increases healing of an incision wound, but the patient can accomplish that with the existing ActiPatch or RecoveryRx product simply by applying tape or rubber bands to the antenna, eliminating the need for (and therefore the marketability of) a new product and eliminating the need for a new 510(k).
Let's summarize. What exactly is the "50% more power" device? RecoveryRxtra or whatever it's called -- how is it different from the existing products?
In post 325408 you said it was the length of the antenna, but that is proven wrong by BIEL's 510(k) documentation.
In post 326204 you said it was the shape of the antenna, but fail to explain why that would require a new 510(k) or even a new device.
Now in 326212 it seems we're back to the length of the antenna.
I guess we'll have to wait for the company to break their silence.
It must break your heart to see a 75,000 share buy at .18
Have you noticed that often, when you bash, the stock price goes up?
You are a contrarian indicator. Thanks for your efforts!
How does changing the shape of the antenna to an elongated rectangle increase power?
That would mean the patient could increase power of the existing RecoveryRx device by taping the antenna into an elongated oval shape or using rubber bands to change the antenna from a circle to an oval.
I really don't think they'd need a new 510(k) for that.
In your post #325408, the power increase was hypothesized to come from a change in antenna size. Now, in this post, it's a change in antenna shape. I wish the company would break their silence and explain what they mean by "power increase" and how it is achieved.
OMG it's not removed... It's on SteveH's page, may he RIP
see post #308859
priceless
I'm sad that Gramps took down the Bobby version of this video.
THAT was funny.
I wonder if the WayBack machine has a copy.
Five chimps stood motionless for 5 seconds. God's Own Chimp stood motionless for five hours.
Distance in each case? 0
When the chimps were asked how time measured distance in this example, they said:
"SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"
And then they flung......... well you know.
G-Star, there are chimps here and then there's God's Own Chimp. You are replying to God's Own Chimp -- the #1 candidate on this board for the Ignore button.
You are correct about time and distance, but being correct means nothing on this board. Accept that.
they've been trying for weeks to pump up the price before the R/S, but it didn't fool anyone.
Interesting to see the SP here when the dust settles after the R/S.
G-Star,
Walker and toohot lost money here and they're bitter. Let them have their lowbrow scatalogical fun. Ignoring them is my recommendation.
Everyone who gambles in pennystock biotech has made bad guesses and lost money at some point. Let's hope these two make a better guess next time, or, if they make another bad guess, let's hope they handle it with more decor.
just to clarify, your investment strategy is:
I'm sorry but Jndouble1 is 100% correct and you are 100% wrong. So please just stop.
Here's a website that describes "wavelength for dummies" -- you'll see that he is right and you are wrong.
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/wavelength#:~:text=The%20frequency%20of%20a%20wave,have%20very%2C%20very%20short%20wavelengths.
"Time is a measurement of distance you idiot?" Say what? Time does NOT measure distance, and Jndouble1 is as far from an idiot as it gets on this board.
And nobody was talking about the relationship of "healing effect" to antenna length. YOUI are the one trying to change the subject. Why?
Let's summarize. We are trying to discern how the "new" RecoveryRx delivers "50% more power." What is BIEL's definition of "power?" What is increasing 50%? For example -- are they simply increasing the battery to 4.5v? Yes, this is a simplification, but if amperage remains constant, increasing voltage by 50% would increase wattage by 50% since P = A * V
As Jndouble discovered, the 510(k) applications specifically state that changing the antenna length doesn't change the peak spatial power density of the device. Furthermore, we don't know for certain whether RecoveryRxtra (or whatever it's called) has a shorter antenna. BIEL is not explaining what is different about RecoveryRxtra.
I think the frequency of RecoveryRxtra is identical to the frequency of the ActiPatch. I'm not the one trying to say that the frequency is changing -- that's one of our resident medical physics experts who's trying to say that, offering Andy's radio-station analogy as "proof."
Which resident medical physics expert? We've so many.
I also see that on page 12 of the first link and on page 2 of the second link, item 11 Table 1 lists two sizes for the loop, "12 cm or 6 cm," but only one Peak spatial power density of 73 microwatts / cm2
So doubling (or halving) the antenna length doesn't change the peak spatial power density, apparently.
I'd like the company to explain what "higher power" means and how the new device achieves 50% more "power." I'd also like to know what an "expedited 510(k)" is. As you said earlier, if a new patent application exists, it would be nice to see that patent application. I'm starting to wonder, though, whether "50% power increase" is some kind of play on words.
I looked at the post to which you're replying -- this statement made me laugh out loud:
" It was explained to me by Andy as being tuned into a radio station frequency like 95.5 ( WPLJ ) with the volume turned way up."
Notice that in Andy's analogy, the frequency (station 95.5) didn't change. And if the frequency did increase -- to station 100.1, for example -- that wouldn't make it louder.
Andy tried, at least.
You are correct. Participants in this discussion should refer to srinsocal's post # 325408:
Every ActiPatch product is "high frequency PEMF therapy."
So your point was WHAT when you offered this as proof that Stanford used the new higher-powered RecoveryRx?
This has to be the worst iHub board.
On virtually every other board, you have educated intelligent discussions about the stock and the company.
On this board: chimps slinging feces.
Look at the posts in the last seven days, or the last 30 days, or the last year, and tell me I'm wrong.
Try to talk about the patents? Better duck, because here comes the FECES!
Try to talk about the actual details and requirements of the NOPAIN Act? Look out! here comes da FECES!
Try to talk about Ilfeld's work, or the one PR the company released in the past 18 months? FECES INCOMING!
A few attempt to maintain decorum. Appreciate the efforts, Sisyphean as they may be. Srinsocal, if I've never said it... Well met, sir. I can tell that this nonsense is wearing on you too. Don't give up. As you know, Staelin is nobody's fool. He could right this ship.
G-Star, thanks, but just let it go. This "categorically" explains the problem with the chimps in this particular zoo:
https://reason.com/2022/08/19/incompetent-people-are-often-too-incompetent-to-realize-just-how-incompetent-they-are-says-new-study/
As for the directive "don’t disrespect Moderators....." here's an analogy to an iHub moderator in the new iHub world: a shirriff [sic] in Tolkien's Shire.
https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Shirriffs
'Nuthin Said, you apparently didn't get the memo.
Don't reply to my posts and I won't embarrass you for being insipid.
You never say anything about the stock or the company -- you merely bare your teeth and sling feces. That's your choice -- that's how you want to present yourself in this forum -- but do it without replying to any of my posts and I will no longer know that you exist.
Please.
Here's a hint for you and all the chimps: don't reply directly to my posts. Do the cowardly PforP trick and just post your feces-slinging sophomoric nonsense without replying.
If you don't reply, I'll never see your post, I'll never make you look foolish with a reply, and we'll both be happy.
That goes especially for 'Nuthin' Said and JustGoBroke.
Careful, ya got some on ya.
LOL, more feces-slinging chimps than I realized.
Thanks for identifying yourself. Much appreciated.
Without naming anyone, it was a reply to the plantar post by a moderator this week.
the post i'm referring to has these excerpts:
I'm commenting on what was said on facebook.
I agree with you, If Ilfeld gets a positive clinical outcome on the lower powered device then so much the better.
I just don't like to see misinformation, on FB or anywhere else. And I saw an opportunity to talk about the stock or the company instead of talking about someone else. Silly me. You'd think I'd learn.
Ummm, unless you explain WHY my conclusions are false, you, sir, are full of shit.
I only brought it up because a member on FB said they thought the Stanford Study used the new version, and to my knowledge the new version is only in the RecoveryRx product line, at least according to Staelin.
Maybe Stanford used a model with a smaller antenna, maybe they didn't. But for the reasons I stated, I think they used a standard ActiPatch. The study was for both thumb and Carpal Tunnel, correct?
Stanford Study appears to use ActiPatch, not RecoveryRx. Look under Design Details -- for Other Names, it says "ActiPatch."
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05315297?id=NCT05315297&rank=1
Furthermore, they entered the Study Description in September 2022 and have not edited that since. I don't believe BIEL had any extra-strength RecoveryRx devices available in September 2022 so the study designers would have planned to use what was available at that time. And if they changed the device they SHOULD have updated that detail.
I doubt the Stanford people made mistakes on the clinicaltrials.gov page, but maybe they did. Regardless -- anyone claiming the Stanford Study is using the new extra-strength RecoveryRx should provide proof of that claim that's stronger than the proof I've provided here.
ActiPatch Model 088 is not the new modified version of RecoveryRx.
Look on the back of any ActiPatch box. It's Model 088. Look at the picture of the box here on Amazon:
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51koFRsuRoL._AC_SX522_.jpg
https://www.amazon.com/Actipatch-Muscle-Joint-Therapy-Device/dp/B07PTC6RNH/ref=sr_1_2?crid=1V2BQRFVHGJAC&keywords=actipatch&qid=1706012563&sprefix=actipatch%2Caps%2C80&sr=8-2
Here's more proof: The National Provider Identifier (NPI) for ActiPatch model 088 has existed since 2021, at least. Here's proof on the HIPAA page. Model 088 is ActiPatch, not RecoveryRx, and it's not new.
https://www.hipaaspace.com/medical_billing/coding/global.unique.medical.device.identification/00851329005470
Here's another clue: Ilfeld's opioid study started in July 2022. For Ilfeld to use the new higher-powered device, BIEL would have had to manufacture a reasonable number of working devices and sham devices before July 2022. However, in his 2023 year-end letter to shareholders, Staelin said:
BIEL won't let this go to Expert Market, so we'll get financials on March 31st. Not before.
And Staelin's PR told us the revenues will be bad, so there will be no point in complaining about bad revenues when the financials appear. They're also going to be bad in Q1 2024 and in every quarter in the foreseeable future unless something unexpected happens, and without a Sales VP, that's kind of unlikely. Let's not forget that the International Sales Manager (Sanders) is also looking for a new job on LinkedIn.
So let's stop talking about the missing financials. It is what it is. The only things that matter now, IMO, are:
1. What's the plan to reinstate the patents?
2. When will they submit the "expedited 510(k)" to the FDA? What is an expedited 510(k) anyway?
3. Will they hire a new VP of Sales to replace Nalepka?
4. What's the plan for funding? Are they going to do a R/S? If so, when, and how bad will it be?
5. Will Dr. Ilfeld publish the results of the opioid study that finished in October, and if so, will it meet the CMS requirements for the NOPAIN Act?
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05399355?term=Brian%20M.%20Ilfeld&viewType=Table&limit=100&page=1&rank=46Il
Staelin said Ilfeld will publish the results of the ghost pain study but that didn't measure or analyze opioid use, so that's not going to work for the NOPAIN Act requirement of proving a reduction in opioid use.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05392803?term=Brian%20M.%20Ilfeld&viewType=Table&limit=100&page=1&rank=47
"How is this board not fun?"
It's people at their road-rage worst. It's just one MB pissing contest after another. If you remove all the posts that aren't merely sophomoric insults, there'd be only a couple of posts each day.
It's pathetic. It's repugnant. It's distasteful. It's as far from FUN as it can get.
I
Believe me, I know you don't want facts.
First you insult me, and now you want me to explain patent law to you.
Just go back to insulting me. You won't believe what I tell you anyway.
That goes for all of you. I gave you the facts -- do with them what you will. Peace Out.
You state "It is correct that the utility patent has expired for lack of maintenance payment. "
If we can all accept that as fact, I have nothing more to say about the patents, except that it's not just one utility patent, it's ALL of the utility patents. I don't know about the Design patents because, well, who cares, because a competitor wouldn't use their designs anyway.
"International Patents?" Give me the patent number of a patent that BIEL holds in any country other than the USA.
You apparently don't know how US patents work on the global stage and how the Office of International Patent Cooperation (OIPC) works. Which, again is simply ignorance that can be cured. Here's a good place to start:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-patent-cooperation
Unfortunately, this is a USPTO initiative, and you seem to have chosen to ignore the USPTO and base your investment decisions on a LLC that charges a fee to maintain patents. But, there it is, if you want to cure that ignorance.
THE USPTO provides current information on the government site to which I keep posting the link. The patents expired due to non-payment of maintenance fees.
Accept evidence that the world is round, or ignore that evidence and insist that the world is flat and fling feces at those who show you the evidence that it's round. Your choice.
No, Maintenance Fees are due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years. Here's the link again. Just scroll down to "Maintenance Fees."
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule#Patent%20Maintenance%20Fee
I see that you didn't know the patent owner needs to pay scheduled maintenance fees. That's OK, there's no shame in ignorance, unless maybe you are the CEO of a publicly traded company that owns those patents as their only protected Intellectual Property.
The patents would expire in 2029 if the company paid the necessary maintenance fees.
Which, as the USPTO shows with no ambiguity, THEY DID NOT. The patents are expired NOW, due to non-payment of maintenance fees.
And they have eight patents, three of which are DESIGN patents which don't protect the device.
US-20140249355-A1
US-D706432-S
US-8412328-B2
US-20120245403-A1
US-D643306-S
US-D638949-S
US-20100075211-A1
US-7551957-B2
And this is the part where you insult me again and call me a joke. It's OK, go ahead, I expect it. It's called the Ad Hominem fallacy and it's basically the only response I ever get on this board.
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/ad-hominem.html
If you want to discuss the possibility of BIEL reinstating the patents, well, that would be an actual discussion. Tread lightly there because you'd be in uncharted territory.
Again, you've proven my point. Thanks. I guess.
And you don't believe "Patty" when she says this: