% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Venaxis, Inc. Message Board

  • thinkequity May 26, 2010 12:22 PM Flag

    ThinkEquity's conversation with CCHIL!


    I spoke with two emergency medicine physicians at Cook County Hospital (Chicago) about appyscore. Cook County Hospital participated in the trial. They both thought it was fast, easy and said it worked. One would not comment on it's effectiveness but the other (let it slip?) that they had 100% accuracy! 100%! He was unaware of the company developing the product so told him a little about the company and if it was that great he should look into buying some shares. Wow it made me feel like an old school broker LOL. Things are looking excellent!

    Rumor has it that appy has also been "secretly" testing it(appyscore) with nurses and doctors involved in homecare/housecalls which I find interesting. I find it interesting because this area of medicine is growing exponentially.

    I will be contacting Novartis thus afternoon to talk with them about Bovipure see if I can get a new angle on it. Will post findings today or tomorrow. Enjoy your trading day.

    Jeffrey Freelick

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Isn't even what you said against SEC disclosure rules? Isn't that trade able information?


    • quote:
      Using a little imagination, I wouldn't put it past this guy to try and ramp this stock up thru mid week next week only to post a doomsday out-come for results, all the while shorting the stock.

      That seems to be the purpose behind ramping the stock price prior to the "event".

      This allows folks to sell early - thus getting some of the benefit, without any of the risk. That is, don't have to straddle the "event".

      If results do not appear on promised timeline, there is then opportunity by them to badmouth the trial and possibly buy another set of shares (or to cover the short).

      Anybody got confirmation from Greg Pusey on results timeline - and if it matches Dan Weiss posting that "this week or next week" ?

      I wonder how much Dan Weiss has been relying on the fake poster - because Dan Weiss could be the poster "investorwalkdan" who has responded to the fake poster. Dan Weiss blog is at "". Or if Dan Weiss's information is direct from Greg Pusey.

      In fact the "investorwalkdan" has posed questions to be asked of Greg Pusey, which the fake poster has delivered.

    • Absolutely and please stop replying to this fraud. It makes him feel very important and just excites him more. Messy business..

    • quote:
      Im not concerned with who you are accusing me of being or what nonsense you are trying to foist on me. What I care about is the bottom line. The bottom line is my recommended equities performance.

      Bottom line is identity theft.

      You are acquiring the real-world identity of someone who claims you are not him (when they are contacted via phone or e-mail).

      What response do you expect ?

    • After the analysis above, this thread was started:

      tinyurl (dot) com/3395zf3
      WHY RAISE FUNDS> ThinkEquity

      and you see the appearance of the "usual suspects" (as outlined in the analysis above):

      So the social organization seems to be:

      Maybe jasonstuttgart is not one of the gang if he says he's not.

      Why all this debate about study being blinded or not? Clearly stated in company's press release!

      Because "Jeff Freelick of ThinkEquity" (identity theft) was posting here that he talked to physicians. And when queried suggested that they did not blind the test "because it was needed for better followup".

    • "The Company and all participants in the study remain blinded to the data until the close of the study and there can be no assurance of the outcome of the study based on the interim analysis."

      Why all this debate about study being blinded or not? Clearly stated in company's press release!

    • The overwhelming evidence (information in this thread, and e-mail responses folks have received) suggests "Jeff Freelick" ( is a fraudulent impersonator. Engaging in identity theft.

      I doubt we will hear from him much longer - lest he leaves an even longer trail.

      It is quite possible the real person may instigate legal proceedings against him.

      Freelick started off by posting from their report (I don't have their report but it looks like a valid report).

      Following his first post, there were immediate compliments from "jasonstuttgart".

      Meanwhile "tydurban" and "jasonstuttgart" got into a fight.

      tydurban acting as the bad cop. And jasonstuttgart as the welcomer - asking Freelick about GNBT, Cook County Hospital.

      Later "silviacabral" enters as a "Nurse". Suggesting agreement.

      Meanwhile she's also posted elsewhere that she's an economics professor at NYU - in a thread related to a organizing a claims litigation against some company. Turns out her e-mail is fake and she is called out as a fake in that thread.

      In the same thread we find posts by "tydurban" and "jasonstuttgart" as well.

      Then "tydurban" issues a "cover your shorts" post - seemingly finally having caved in to the persuasion of Freelick.

      In reply Freelick answers "tydurban" about how to buy using margin.

      Many of these seem to reside on the "Clean Coal Technologies" board.

      Freelick also mistakenly posted on the "Clean Coal" board as well.

      So the social organization seems to be:


    • quote:
      Yes touché but from conversations with Aspen it sounded like the "blind" part of that study hurt their follow up ability.

      You may have a point. Perhaps there is some nuance about requiring some information to do useful followup, that is not obvious to us - not being privy to the trial design lessons they learned from the 600 patient "failed" trial.

    • quote:
      Right. I'm sure because of the test design management had a pretty good idea of how the trial went back when it ended in March. This is one reason why Lundy came in.

      I may be wrong, but it seems these trials have some method by which they do a "sanity check" on how the trial is going.

      They may do this by unblinding a subset of the data etc.

      I am not sure.

      Also if Lundy joined the company for this reason, then he may not have needed data from the new 800 patient trial to be convinced. Maybe he just liked the 600 patient trial data, or saw some potential for improvement and eventual approval.

      From what I understand of the trial, the patients got the usual workup (+/- US, +/- CT, +/- surgery) and in addition to this, had their blood sampled for the AppyScore. There is no randomization between CT vs AppyScore. I'm not sure there is even a reason to blind patients or providers in this case.

      Since the APPYScore test in the new 800 patient trial is like the 600 patient trial, i.e. it uses the ELIZA test format (not the eventual 15-minute cartridge-based format), it seems unlikely that ER physicians would "casually" have observed what the APPYScore results were for the patient. In any case, they weren't SUPPOSED to know the results - since that is not required for the trial. It is APPY collecting data so it can compare it's performance.

      The ELISA format described here does not lend itself for "on the fly" availability of results. It seems more like something that would be done a bit later after blood is collected. Which would eliminate the "casual" access to that data for ER physicians taking care of patients.

      It was unblinded to both caregivers and patients because the company(appy) wanted to follow up on patients (who were Quasi-enrolled when asked if they would allow their blood to be analyzed and phone numbers to be obtained by a third party/appy) and it was unblinded to the caregivers because they enrolled the random participants and logged the WBC and Appyscore results.

      You also don't need to know what the APPYScore was to do followup, since you just followup EVERYONE. Unless of course a decision was made to use the APPYScore results to convince patients to come back to hospital for repeat test or something. That is, if there was some nuance added to the trial protocol.

    • View More Messages
3.22Jun 28 3:53 PMEDT