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.
It is hard to understand how someone who honestly believes that the system is rigged so strongly against them would even consider being in this market.
Ce la vie, and to each their own.
p.s. that cancer treatment you are/were invested in is looking strong lately!
Now Srinsocal, you know full well that those trades will be covered and closed well before the required time period, most likely within minutes. That is why there will not be any “fail to delivers” on the monthly short interest report ( the one that matters, as opposed to the daily report you are so fond of). This has been discussed as nauseam.
The point is that some one sold all of those shares at a very low price. Whether the MM had the shares in their account at the moment of the sale, or a minute, or a day later doesn’t change any of the facts.
The 6th of April was a Saturday, 6th of March it never traded below 2. You bought in February? Or maybe earlier?
Looks like you broke even or maybe even lost a little on that flip. It has definitely gotten difficult to profit on this ticker.
Well, yes…
My point exactly!
The Eeyore quote is from The House at Pooh Corner, maybe you’re not familiar with that one.
I liked your Eeyore post honestly. I’ve always been a little partial to that character.
Here’s an old, but nice take:
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/may/09/eeyore-literature-archetypal-outsider
So I took the bait, and Asked...
I asked the question just as you phrased it, and AI had this to say about shelf life of electronic devices:
(I only quote portions of the response for brevity, my response in blue.)
1. Manufacturing date and age:
The age of the device plays a significant role in determining its shelf life
I hope that I don't have to explain how hilarious this response is.
2. Storage conditions
Proper storage in controlled environments can help prolong the shelf life of electronic devices
This aspect has absolutely nothing to do with money spent "redesigning the ActiPatch to increase reliability and shelf life"
3. Power management
Overcharging, deep discharging, and exposing the device to voltage spikes can lead to reduced battery life and potential damage to other components. Implementing proper power management techniques can help maintain the performance and longevity of electronic devices.
Again, AI misses the mark. all of the points mentioned here are about performance or operational life, not shelf life. I believe that the product still ships with a tab inserted which isolates the battery from the circuitry, so no, there are no power management techniques that will affect shelf life.
4. Environmental Factors
[Protective measures like sealing and shielding can help mitigate the effects of environmental factors on the shelf life of electronic devices.
Again, not something that a redesign of the ActiPatch would be needed for, the circuitry is already sealed in an epoxy bubble, and electromagnetic interference is simply not an issue for shelf life of a device as simple as the ActiPatch.
5. Software Updates and Maintenance
[neglecting routine maintenance tasks like cleaning and replacing worn-out components can lead to reduced performance and shorter shelf life
One more time, this reply has nothing to do with shelf life. It seems that AI didn't understand what shelf life means.
My criticism was neither veiled nor feeble, the announcement that BIEL spent money increasing the shelf life of the product was ridiculous on the face of it. If there were reliability issues that got fixed that's great, but I wasn't aware that we had reliability issues that required investing what little funds are available to remedy them. This part of the communication from BIEL was fluff, and best forgotten, but if others want to point to that as proof of something positive, I feel like it is worth poking at.
So called AI is currently not something to rely on, as is abundantly clear in this case.
https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=with+the+exception+of+rechargeable+batteries%2C+is+battery+life+about+the+only+aspect+of+an+electronic+device+that+affects+shelf+life%3F
“BIEL spent money recently redesigning the ActiPatch to increase reliability and shelf life. “
What exactly can you do to increase the shelf life of an electronic device?
Battery life is about the only aspect of the device that affects shelf life.
If inventory sits on the shelf long enough for the battery to degrade, then there are far bigger problems.
Shucks….
Looks like publishing good news on a Friday doesn’t move the stock price so much on Monday. Who’d a thunk it?
Oh well, maybe today is the day…
If you are correct, and our stock price is being manipulated to such a degree, what chance do small retail investors have ?
Is it your intention to convince us to save our money and get out of this manipulated market?
If I believed what you post, I would have no choice but to sell and look for a safer place to invest.
“ I took the time educate you on frequency.”
Let’s take a look at that…
“ Frequency is the distance between waves. ”
No it is not. Frequency is the time interval between peaks (or troughs) of a wave. Wavelength is the distance between peaks.
“Think of the height or peak of the wave vs valleys or the distance between those waves. “
The height of a wave is called the amplitude, and is not really related to either frequency or wavelength, so this sentence is meaningless.
“ As the distance from the originating source of radiation lengthens so do the wavelength lengthens resulting in lower peaks and wider valleys.”
This is just gibberish, the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation does not change as a function of distance from the source. And again, amplitude and wavelength are not correlated in the way you describe.
“ The resultant frequency of the wavelengths lessens exponentially with distance. ”
The frequency of the wavelengths? The inverse square law that you are butchering is about intensity as a function of distance. The farther away from a light bulb you get, the less bright the light appears (it’s really about spatial density). The same amount of energy spread over a greater amount of space. The wavelength and frequency of the light don’t change however. That would imply that light changes color as a function of distance from the source, which is simply not the case.
“ The inverse is equally true when shortening the
distance of the ration source ( decreased antenna circumference) resulting in higher peaks and a
shorter distance between those peaks resulting in increased frequency between wavelengths.”
This word salad of nonsense has already been addressed.
I think it is clear that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. I didn’t intend the discussion to go this way, but I couldn’t leave your statement about educating anyone about frequency without a reply.
Just because you disagree with someone’s position, doesn’t mean that they don’t know what they are talking about. Opening our minds to the possibility that the other person might have a point worthy of discussing would do us all some good.
I was just pointing out that in previous filings with the FDA, BIEL made the claim that
"The minor differences in the antenna size between ActiPatch and the predicate devices do not affect the average spatial power density levels."
The differences in antenna size that was included in the filing were fairly large. They listed antenna size/treatment areas as: 110 cm2 ,65 cm2 , and 285 cm2. Thats a 4x difference between the 65 and 285 cm2 treatment areas.
Honestly, I was surprised to see this in the filings, but apparently the agency accepted it. So my point was just that the company has previously argued that "minor differences" in antenna size don't really matter.
Here is an interesting aspect.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf15/k152432.pdf
Note the part where in the 510k application, where it is stated that the differences in antenna size between the various predicate products and the Actipatch don’t affect the average spatial power density. The same caveat was included in the Recovery RX 510k.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf19/K190251.pdf
I wonder if our resident medical physics expert will be willing to help his fellow investors understand what this means.
There is so much wrong in this statement, that I wouldn’t even know where to begin.
“ The smaller antenna concentrates the wavelength which results in a higher frequency for deeper penetration into the tissue.“
Not even close. At the very least look it up on Wikipedia before you start throwing jargon around, it makes you sound silly.
Those are quotation marks, not parentheses. Anyone with a high school diploma should know that.
I used the quotes around “new”, because there is no hard evidence to date of a new device. Recovery RX is just Actipatch re-branded. Using a smaller antenna takes us all the way back to the Actiband and its FDA clearance for treatment of edema following eye surgery.
As I understand it, the only real change on the table is the indication. Wound healing and pain reduction following surgery, or something like that.
Maybe I’m wrong, maybe there is a whole new device operating at different frequencies, and higher power. If so, I will be very interested in the patent applications, and the choice of predicate devices for the 510k application.
Ok, if you don’t want to engage in a substantive discussion, that’s certainly your prerogative, but you do know that the “new” device uses the same frequency right?
Otherwise they will almost certainly need a new predicate. That would make the whole 510k process much more difficult.
For what it’s worth, I hold a PhD in Physical Chemistry, so I am capable of having a good conversation about the technology involved here. I’ll admit that medical physics is not my area, but I am more than capable at understanding the working principles.
The question is whether or not Recovery RX-Extra (or whatever the higher power device is called) use a different frequency than the previous devices.
To date everything BIEL has made and is cleared to market uses the same frequency.
Are you claiming the new device will operate a a different frequency?
The belief on the board previously was that the new device simply uses a smaller antenna, or perhaps eve just a new shape.
It is clear that you have have some expertise in the discipline, and that we might all benefit from your knowledge.
Thanks
This is how you freely choose to spend your time.
These are the people with whom you choose to be associated.
These are choices.
Not a Niels Bohr quote.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict/?amp=1
The internet is full of misinformation. One must be truly judicious in what they choose to believe. Pretty language and misattributions do not supersede expertly sourced facts.
Nice try…
You almost came off as intelligent. The Anthropic Principle is in no way relevant to any discussion that has ever, or likely will ever, take place on this board.
It sort of sounded good, but making shit up and throwing around big words you don’t understand only works on people less intelligent than you.
Or…
Because no one was willing to pay .0004 for the stock.
I am certain that if you offer to pay .0004 per share, the market makers will fill your order very quickly.
You should give it a try tomorrow.
Well said…
The best to you and yours for the new year!
Best wishes to all here for the holidays and the new year.
Coming out of the woodwork…
My post seems to have struck a nerve with the peanut gallery.
Nice to hear from you both. Merry Christmas!
Please excuse the typo’s in my previous post, I was in a hurry and I failed to proof the post. Apologies.
Wow, none of that dissertation has anything to do with what I posted.
My post concerns your belief that BUEL’s share price would be higher but for MM manipulation. This is a position that I wholeheartedly diss free with.
Further, your instance on posting implications of such manipulation belies the intelligence which you exhibit. Thus a bullshit agenda must be at play.
That’s what my post was about, not a laundry list of unrelated news articles. SMH
Coming from the one who regularly posts FINRA daily short report data and claims that those numbers justify a conspiracy theory that market makers are holding BIEL back.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so frustratingly sad.
Wow, great day.
Just now tuning in.
Let’s hope it’s the start of something big.
From the link you posted:
Synergy Corporation is a reliable and established outsourcing partner for integrated market management services from market penetration
“Outsourcing partner” and “became a part of” are two different concepts.
Synergy remains an independent company, such as it is.
Did I miss anything?
Been away for a bit. Seems we are pushing against a new all time low. Thats unfortunate.
Since the Holiday season is upon us, let's just take a pass and wait for the new year.
Or, carry on. Either way, hope you're having fun.
Where were the products in those photos from the facility in MD headed for?
Were they not headed for Italy once, and once photos of product headed to South Africa? Honestly I have forgotten.
If product made in China gets shipped to MD before heading to final destination, wouldn’t it make more sense to just have a few more sent over for US customers?
I get what you’re saying, and my expertise was science, not business, so I am probably out of my lane on this one.
Two questions...
You seem to be implying that Viant Medical might be manufacturing Actipatch for Bioelectronics Corp.
Do you believe that that is happening?
It would almost certainly cost significantly more to have Viant Medical manufacture the device than CCID even with shipping costs.
Do you believe that this would be a good business decision?
FWIW, if you call the company they will answer some questions about the manufacturing. I'm told that the Made in USA aspect is taking place in Frederick MD.
That is incorrect.
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/advertising-marketing/made-in-usa
Here is the response from management regarding the made in USA claim,
I sent this question to IR:
I noticed that a "Made in USA" claim is now included on the Actipatch.com website. Is this a new development? Is the the product no longer being made by CICD technologies in China? What exactly does Bioelectronics Corp. mean by Made in USA? The FTC definition is
“Made in USA” means that “all or virtually all” the product has been made in America. That is, all significant parts, processing and labor that go into the product must be of U.S. origin.
If this is true, it would represent a significant change to the manufacturing process. This change would undoubtedly alter the cost of goods sold, and thus potentially represent a material event. Can you confirm the validity of the made in USA claim?
The response "from mngt"was:
Occasionally, we have product entirely assembled in China- for instance
the product manufactured for KT Health bore the label- Manufactured for
BioElectronics Corporation by CICD Technologies.
The product sold on ActiPatch.com is made in the USA and meets the
standard to make that claim.
Bioelectronics is currently making the "Made in USA" claim on Actipatch.com.
BIEL had capabilities of manufacturing circuit boards? I know the device is pretty rudimentary, but I thought all they had the capacity for was inserting into the final packaging.
Do you think they are "manufacturing" in the USA now?
Is that what Kelly is busy doing, soldering chips onto boards, and pouring epoxy?
You mentioned that BIEL is now manufacturing Actipatch in the US.
According to this LinkedIn post, they have been manufacturing in the USA for a long time (at least since 2016)
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/actipatch-testimonials-erin-sanders/
It's curious since Covid shutdowns in China were used to explain poor sales in recent years.
I spoke with the company, and they said that "certain aspects" of the product were made in CHINA, but otherwise it's made in USA. I have some serious doubts about the validity of the Made in USA Claim. I fear that they may be stretching the definitions a bit. Do you have any confirming information? Do you know where or by whom the device is manufactured? How long has the product been made in the USA?
Yes, Jarkesy is an interesting case to keep an eye on.
The appetite for dismantling the so-called administrative state is pretty strong right now, so it will be interesting to see how the court rules.
The relevance to BIEL is not clear. Am I correct in assuming that you believe that the Whelans would have been exonerated if they had been given a full trial in federal court? My understanding was that they clearly broke the rules. As I recall (and my recollection is hazy at this point) their defense was not that they were innocent, but that their lawyer told them what they were doing was OK (not a great defense).
I don't think that I am as strong an advocate for deregulation, or dismantling as you seem to be, but both sides have strong arguments. I just hope that the current swing of the pendulum doesn't go to far.
“Anything else you want to challenge me with?”
Your misuse of the terms retort, rhetorical, and satire have the ironic effect of confirming your lack of, shall we say, communication skills.
Hmm, that's not really an answer.
A better answer would be: existing FDA clearances might have some value.
It wouldn't be terribly difficult to achieve substantial equivalence to BIEL's products, but it would require a little time and money. I suppose that if there was any evidence of market viability, someone like Enovis might consider buying the product rather than making their own. That part about market viability is really the sticking point though, don't you think?
Yet..you didn't offer an answer to the question.
It was a genuinely, and respectfully posed inquiry.
And, it was not a retort so much as a reply. A retort is defined as:
"say something in answer to a remark or accusation, typically in a sharp, angry, or wittily incisive manner."
My reply to the Ricci's question was none of the above (maybe wittily incisive but...). It was a serious question, worth discussing.
If you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, perhaps staying silent would be appropriate.
What would they be bidding for?
There is no longer any intellectual property.
There is no loyal customer base (they would know).
No viable branding to speak of.
Supply chain is not terribly complex.
What is there of value to make a bid for?
This is a serious question.
You might just as well ask if Enovis will ever simply manufacture their own device.
I never said it was hard to understand.
It was a technical issue, as stated in the court transcripts. Prior to the Lucia case, the DoJ held the position that the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) were not officers of the government, and were therefore not subject to the appointment clause. It was standard practice throughout the government for many years. the Lucia case, and those that flowed from it hinge on the definition of "officers". The court at the time of Lucia (and further since) was leaning against the "administrative state".
In the case of the SEC, the court ruled that the ALJ's were indeed officers. As such, they needed to be appointed by "the president, the courts or 'heads of departments.'" At the time, the ALJ's were appointed by staff lower than "heads of department". Even though all ALJ decisions were reviewed by the Security and Exchange Commission (which counts as a Head of Department).
In a single order, the commission ratified all of the existing ALJ's. So the answer to my earlier question, was; all of them.
The Supreme Court ruling was a big deal, as you know. Any plaintiff who wished to could request a new hearing. The ramifications are stilling playing out in some cases.
Nothing, however, has actually changed in the process of SEC hearings. The only difference, is that the appointments of ALJ's must come from a layer higher in the bureaucracy than previous to Lucia. They are still appointed from within the commission. It was a technical issue regarding process, and defining terms. Yes, it was determined that the prior process violated the constitution, and now it has changed. It is not as black and white as some would have it. The definitions could change again someday.
How so? Please elaborate on your argument. I would be happy to have a reasoned debate on this topic (even if it is a bit dated).