Replies to post #52749 on American Scientific Resources (ASFX)

[dannol48]

The progress you dismiss is strongly evidenced in the record topline and restoration of gross profits that certainly helped cashflow (the goal stated to offset at beginning of year), and the narrowing loss (which BTW you misguided the board with a hugh miss of $6M loss verus actual loss of $785K).

Refinement of language quarter-over-quarter, as progress or change, is exactly what is required and they are doing an excellent job (IMO) of getting the facts to investors. They set a baseline for capital need at the beginning of 2011 (where that language of requirement started) with a stake in the ground, and are showing progress and changes in path for the year. What they may or may not need or do with capital funds, and the need to raise capital is a changing condition. However, a forward look with improving cashflow and conditions isn't incorrect either. That's not fraud and the depiction of fraud is highly inaccurate when full and complete disclosure is made (IMO).

I'm also noting your lack of acknowlegement (despite prior discussion on topic), that a great deal of the "book loss" for 2011 to date is for other than real capital/cash use, e.g. the options for employees at 40 cents in Q2. Disregarding fact is contributing you your inaccurate statements (IMO). One quote in your post shows the difference, i.e. the real cash burn rate is the issue.

"As reported in the December 31, 2010 audited financial statements, the Company had current liabilities that exceeded current assets by $5,149,524 as of December 31, 2010, and had reported a net loss of $7,040,767 and used $896,346 of cash in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2010."

It's not their obligation to report every sale made, so the possibility of another good quarter was shaping-up prior to mid-quarter with PRs that included new market (Japan), new venue (a hugh Canada private-label retailer), and reorders that included an order-over-order increase in amount (UK).

[dannol48]

Christy, is large purchase order from a Walmart or one of the other potential, large, national-based retailers possible?

Are you suggesting that large, e.g. 100,000 unit size orders, isn't possible with the new product against those large retailers to stock their distribution centers and retail shelves nationwide? What would be your best guess at order size to stock a Walmart?

Are you stating as fact that the possibility didn't exist during 2011, as part of full disclosure of purpose for cash and their suggestion of organic growth to offset cash need, isn't part of the discussion on the potential capital requirements and meets those full disclosure requirements?

Are you stating as fact that the need for $1 Million for current need as forward (12 month) for VeraTemp versus the $2 Million for a new product, that is probably on hold until cashflow is sustainable, isn't part of the baseline on how and when they need money and properly differentiates purpose? Frankly, I'm very curious about the new product(s). Any thoughts on what it is?

Lastly, would you want to be holding stock on the day before they make a major announcement of large order(s), or wait until after the announcement is made? That's a very important question, given the past quarters results and the major retailers that are selling the product in the .com area. Those majors are certainly looking at 2012 decisions for retail product. That possibility is absolutely what got my interest. I've properly stated my suggestions on risk vs. reward and OTC Market investing on prior post, so curious why you bought stock last year with all the "baggage" and the obvious need to recapitalize on reboot with the new product as focus. I do my homework.