[satyanar]

All you need to know is in the other thread you have already found.

[rwalmsley_851]

You should probably buy GE stock instead.

[Unknown Member]

The forum says that you are replying to someone else, but I am not sure whether your comment was directed at me. If it was, the answer is that I believe that if this company and technology is legitimate, there is an order of magnitude more upside than in GE. Not only can it be made immediately available to all the medical clinics and doctors offices who don’t have scanners (almost all here in Canada), small towns who don’t have scanners, and poorer countries with trained radiologists but where lower cost systems would make a big difference like South Africa, India, etc. (even here in Canada some people have to wait 6 months for a scan due to limited scanners), not to mention that hospitals even in the US should only have 30% of its equipment older than 5 years and nearly none older than 10, but they also plan to license their tech e.g: airports, security, industrial, testing…anything that needs to be scanned. I am confident in their x-ray and tomosynthesis technology, and have seen comparison scans and data that show it has 10x less radiation than existing models. What I am looking to understand now is the potential to be a viable alternative to CT scanners.

[ruszja]

‘Testimonial’, lol. Is this the ‘cathedral of the holy Nanox’ ?

[Unknown Member]

The discussion in that thread was certainly interesting, but it didn’t address any of the information that is out there, including the study that I shared here. Conclusions seemed to be based on a lack of having direct evidence of their technology, and therefore weren’t terribly helpful to me as I have amassed a lot of information in my research efforts. I saw many scans and comparisons that did not get posted there and were said to not exist in that thread, and a lot of other information that was not discussed. I therefore wanted to start a discussion by sharing a study that I have found that may be a starting point to further research. I am also happy to share anything else that I’ve found for anyone who is interested. 

[satyanar]

There will be no discussion here because as a whole our knowledge and experience is vastly superior to anything you can find searching the internet.  This will be  my one comment and you can take it leave it. I’m tired of people that do not understand the field coming back with question after question trying to prove how much more they know.
 
The issue is not the basic technology which clearly exists. That is the part Citron got wrong. I think they are overstating their position. It may not be  an outright fraud. In fact it probably isn’t. However, NANOX is touting a machine that can take CT quality images and can screen for cancer. This is blatantly false and any radiologist that is being honest will confirm that. I have no idea what USARAD is up to. I asked on the other thread if there was anyone here that would like to answer for them and there was no response.

[Unknown Member]

I apologize if I came across as though I thought that I knew more than any of you here. I stated in my post that I am only here because I DON’T have the experience and respect yours. Would you mind answering why you do not believe that the Nanox technology can take scans equivalent to a CT scanner? As far as I understand, a CT scan is developed from a multitude of individual scans, which per the attached image, they seem to do quite well. Is it because the tech, as it is today in their prototype, does not rotate 360 degrees, which I would assume is something that they would be able to address in their H2 release? Also, can I take from your response that the study that I shared sheds no light one way or another whether they would be able to produce scans equivalent to CT?
 
Edit: The attachment did not come through. Here is a direct link to the comparison scan that I was referencing: [link=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eh5KUpwXkAAb0fW?format=jpg&name=large]https://pbs.twimg.com/med…mat=jpg&name=large[/link]

[satyanar]

You are just going to have to take my and the other’s word for it. No time to answer each one of your questions. You are being respectful which is nice. I was referring to the posters on investor websites that are so wrapped up in their quest for the quick buck they have no interest in listening to someone that knows what’s going on. 

[Unknown Member]

I see. Most of the people on those websites are promoting their stock with a short term mindset and are not actually interested in the true answers, which is something that I am very interested in. The sole reason that I came to this forum is to learn more from you because I have a deficiency in my knowledge and am trying to understand the truth. It is difficult because I do not understand, even through attempted research, whether the technologies mentioned in that study are equivalent to a CT scan, nor do I understand the exact reasoning why you and, what it seems from your comments many/most/all people on here, are adamant that they won’t be able to do useful CT scans.

[satyanar]

Like I said it is beyond our ability nor worth our time to explain it to you. You will just have to take our word for it as experts. Take it or leave it.

[Unknown Member]

That is fair. If you have taken a look at the study, the scans, and the raw 3D image scan and believe that there is no way they will ever be able to produce useful scans equivalent to CT, I will rely on your expertise. Is that the case?

[satyanar]

Quote from Ryanl

That is fair. If you have taken a look at the study, the scans, and the raw 3D image scan and believe that there is no way they will ever be able to produce useful scans equivalent to CT, I will rely on your expertise. Is that the case?

 
Yes that is the case.

[JohnnyFever]

Its essentially a Theranos situation. Maybe a good investment in the short term, until people like you figure out what all of us here already know.

[julie.young_645]

The sort answer is that the geometry of the machine simply can’t do a proper job of tomographic imaging. As near as anyone can tell, the thing might be able to do plane tomography…7 x-ray sources in the top of the moving ring, and some sort of detectors in the bottom. The mathematics of computed tomography (which are something like 100 years old…but couldn’t be applied until adequate computer power came available) require at least a partial rotation around the object imaged. 
 
Your link showing the hand radiograph shows that they are taken with impossibly-low doses. To do this, Nanox would have had to come up with a “revolutionary” detector to make a picture out of fewer x-rays. 
 
Your article in the Synchrotron Radiation journal seems to be about some entirely different Nanox, and not at all related to the Israeli company.
 
There are too many gaps in this story. I continue to smell a rat. What say [i]you[/i], Ryanl? 

[Unknown Member]

Thank you DoctorDalai, I very much appreciate your answer. I suppose the example in the video is what you had referred to as plane tomography?
 
To answer your question, I don’t have an opinion about the CT scanning capability, which is why I came here. I thought I had the answer from you until @brickydragon followed up saying that after processing, they could see how it would be near a CT. So, I am still confused, unless the answer is that we just don’t know and won’t know until we see the image after processing.
 
I do feel sure that the scans and comparison scans are showing accurate dosing because the xray tech and scans are backed up by many, including USARAD in the comment he shared in his linked in: [link=https://www.linkedin.com/posts/michael-yuz-md-mba-95a2b844_nanox-raises-59m-for-low-cost-downsized-activity-6712714566851211265-PWpp/.]https://www.linkedin.com/…714566851211265-PWpp/.[/link]
 
I believe the marketing of either the company (or possibly of their VC investors) is overdone; however, from what I have seen from some radiologists on other forums (e.g. Twitter), I also believe that there are some misunderstandings that may have led to some premature judgements. For instance, there were many on Twitter saying that Nanox was promoting that everyone get a scan every year; however, if you watch the video on their website at around 2:38, you will see that the statement, in context, is that they would like to launch enough machines so that every person has access to 1 scan per year (if they need it). That misunderstanding was enough for them to dismiss the technology outright. I don’t see anything to the extent that @fw mentioned though i.e. curing cancer or coronavirus (though, I did see they shared a scan sample showing covid being detected in a scan on their Cantor webcast). That said, their marketing is irrelevant to me, though I can see how it may rub some people the wrong way. I don’t dismiss it though, and will certainly keep my eyes open but, at least for the moment, my personal concern is with the tech. If they have the tech, I am interested and how they choose to market it is up to them, as long as it works, and as long as it is not fraudulent. 
 
I’m not really sure where to go from here. I suppose that I will end up continuing to hold the company as a speculative play with confidence in their flat xray tech, and then would just need to wait for more examples of the 3D images after processing to make a better judgement call about that.

[satyanar]

The radiologist you link to from USARAD has motives quite different from the rest of us here. Even still he does not even talk about the images or how they compare to CT.  I’ll leave it at that.

[joshua.glaze_811]

So strange that an advisor is marketing the product when not FDA approved.
On another note, they have some well known and very respected advisors: Rubin, Pelc, Atherton.
 

Quote from Thread Enhancer

The radiologist you link to from USARAD has motives quite different from the rest of us here. Even still he does not even talk about the images or how they compare to CT.  I’ll leave it at that.

[al.georgiev_193]

Warren Buffett has famously stated that he doesnt invest in things that he doesnt understand. Food for thought

[ruszja]

In a world far away from here and before the dawn of time, I shared an office with physicists and electrical engineers who were developing a novel solid state detector.
 
Its hard. 😉

[ruszja]

Quote from Suprasellar Cistern

Warren Buffett has famously stated that he doesnt invest in things that he doesnt understand. Food for thought

 
What would he know anyway 😉
 
 
I take the opposite approach. I DONT invest in things that I know enough about to say that it probably won’t work…..
Again, its entirely possible that 5 years from now ‘Nanox’ tubes will be standard issue in dental and industrial x-ray units. I just dont think it’ll bring world peace.

[satyanar]

I love it. Someone came in here and used our discussion to help write a short report.

[jdlebamoff_432]

The write-up is pretty damning, but it’s just beating a dead horse at this point. Nanox claims to have re-submitted its application for 510k clearance, so we’ll find out soon enough. They will be required to demonstrate their machine to an independent evaluator in person and have all their claims (or at least basic X-ray radiography claims) validated.
 
On a slightly different topic, does anyone have any familiarity with CareStream’s Nano Mobile unit? It actually does use a cold cathode (CNT-based) inside its tube but makes no wild and crazy claims like Nanox does.

[Unknown Member]

@vaporfly If it is true that the image in that video is not where the picture came from, I will sell my shares. I am wondering if you all here believe the same.

[jdlebamoff_432]

Haha, seriously Ryanl.  There were about 100 various allegations in that report.  Some major, some minor.  I’m sure some of the allegations are false, but there may also be more stink about this company that’s yet to be uncovered.  No one else can give you advice on what to do with your shares, but I think you already know the answer, regardless of whether or not they faked that one scan.
 
One last thing I’d add is, I poured over everything they’ve publicly disclosed about their achievements, and I can’t figure out what their “secret sauce” is.  They described using a micro-array of molybdenum nanocones as their electron source.  But that idea has been around since Spindt first described it 50 years ago.  Has no one else tried this idea and gotten it to work?  And even assuming they did manage to get their cold cathode to work, maybe they should consider putting out a mobile X-ray unit first?

[Unknown Member]

From where I have gotten to in the report so far, the faking of that scan is the only thing that would convince me to sell my shares, because if they have the technology, then regardless of a few short reports, I believe that it will be a good long term investment. If they don’t have the technology, then everything else they are saying does matter, and the company will go to $0. 
 
By the way, they aren’t claiming that some unknown company developed the tech and got it to work: the tech was developed by Sony who spent $1.1 billion on it. 
 
I sold my shares at a large loss until I have further clarity, or at least until I have gotten through the full report and an answer as to whether it is certain that the 3D image was faked.
 
As for USARAD, I can’t for the life of me seeing them being part of any fraud. I am positive they demonstrated the technology live; however, I do not know whether they saw 3D scans or just flat Xrays.

[jdlebamoff_432]

Ryanl, with all due respect, I don’t think you get it.
 
Do you even know what you’re talking about, when you say “if their technology works”?  What technology are you referring to?  A functional tube with a cold cathode capable of outputting 55kV and 2mA, and can image the phantom’s foot if you hold it really still for a long time?  Or the ability to use an 11-source 3D tomo to re-create CT-like images?
 
Everything new and different about their claim is about the cathode.  What everyone seems to be telling you is that, regardless of whether or not their cathode even works, it’s unlikely you can use their 11-source stationary ring to replicate a CT.  That’s like claiming I’ve got an electric motor working in a toy car, so it’s going to power me to the moon.

[satyanar]

That is well said vapor.

[JohnnyFever]

Their lateral foot radiograph is way under penetrated. Imagine the image quality on a thicker body part

[Unknown Member]

Cant teach a ct physics course on an Internet forum. Who knew?

[satyanar]

Guess what the new approach is on the investor discussion groups? “Of course radiologists will say it doesn’t work because they are protecting their million dollar investments and they will be paid 90% less if NANOX ARC works.”

[ruszja]

Quote from RoleCall

Their lateral foot radiograph is way under penetrated. Imagine the image quality on a thicker body part

 
The x-ray of Ms Roentgens hand wasn’t that crisp either.
 
I have no issue with initial images from their systems being fuzzy. Its the nature of R&D that your initial test beds will produce less than diagnostic quality images. As long as you dont claim that you are going to get from building a paper-plane to a passenger jet in a year, that’s a-ok.
 
The people I would like to hear from are:
 
Norbert Pelc (Stanford)
Achille Mileto (U Wash)
Jeffrey Rubin (Duke)
 
My questions for them are:
– have you been able to get your hands on the tube detector testbeds and was someone able to demonstrate the physics of this device to you ?
– how many stock options do you currently hold ?

[JohnnyFever]

I think it’s underpenetrated because the mas is too low. No amount of cold cathoding is going to fix that

[julie.young_645]

[link=https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/09/22/exclusive-interview-the-motley-fool-sits-down-with/]https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/09/22/exclusive-interview-the-motley-fool-sits-down-with/[/link]
 
Gee, answers all MY questions. Who is this Rankin guy who invented X-rays?

[Unknown Member]

Bill rankin? He lived down the street from me growing up. Sold aluminum siding I think.

[Unknown Member]

I appreciate all your input. I guess that I sold too early today based on subsequent price action; though, it will likely be for the best over the long term. Thank you again for taking the time to advise and explain.

[Patrick]

Sorry if you hit a pay wall… Interesting analogy:

[link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-nikola-stock-got-torched-by-a-short-seller-11600867055?st=bxaqdfgmgwq8iyd&reflink=article_copyURL_share]https://www.wsj.com/artic…=article_copyURL_share[/link]

[satyanar]

Quote from Ryanl

I appreciate all your input. I guess that I sold too early today based on subsequent price action; though, it will likely be for the best over the long term. Thank you again for taking the time to advise and explain.

 
This is the right place to come to if you want to get the scoop on the technology and the potential long term viability of their product. Taking that and making decisions about trading is a crap shoot. I made that point in the other thread when people were talking about shorting the stock at $60. The thesis was great and it worked for those that could but it could have easily gone the other way if Citron had not come on the scene.
 
I believe this company cannot earn the type of revenue they describe in their business plan with this current product. The stock is over valued. It doesn’t mean traders won’t send it on a volatile ride for weeks or months and people will make and lose money on both sides of the trade. Best to stay away if this is not your day job.

[ruszja]

They are telling you that its vaporware right in their F1:
 
[i]We have not yet demonstrated the feasibility of our digital X-ray source technology for commercial applications. Although we have produced a working prototype of the Nanox.ARC and developed a prototype of the Nanox.CLOUD, we have not produced any of the approximately 15,000 Nanox.ARC units planned for the initial global deployment under the contract manufacturing agreement with FoxSemicon Integrated Technology, Inc., a subsidiary of Foxconn (FITI). Even if we are able to do so, we may not be able to manufacture the Nanox.ARC at the low costs needed to support our business models, including the Subscription Model, which is our primary business model. We may not receive, or may be delayed in receiving, the necessary approval or clearance for the Nanox.ARC or our future products. We also have not entered into any commercial arrangement for the licensing of our X-ray source under the Licensing Model.[/i]
 
[i]We have developed our X-ray source technology and a prototype of the Nanox.ARC. Even though we believe our X-ray source has achieved commercial applicability, our technology has not been tested over extended periods of time and therefore no meaningful data exists regarding the durability, safety and effectiveness of our X-ray source over extended periods. Although we have produced a working prototype of the Nanox.ARC, we may not be able to successfully integrate our X-ray source into the Nanox.ARC or any medical imaging system. In addition, there is no precedent for commercialization of technology like ours. Even with a fully functional prototype, the commercial scale production and deployment of Nanox.ARC will require significant additional development, sales and marketing efforts, and we may not be able to ensure the effectiveness, accuracy, consistency and safety of the Nanox.ARC in commercial settings. Any unanticipated technical or other problems and the possible insufficiency of funds and other resources needed to complete the development and commercialization of our X-ray source, the Nanox.ARC or the Nanox.CLOUD may result in delays and cause us to incur additional expenses that would increase our losses. If our X-ray source is not commercially feasible now or in the long term, our business may fail.[/i]
 
[i]To date, we have not had any discussion with the FDA or other regulatory authorities regarding the regulatory pathways for our product candidates. Efforts to achieve required governmental clearances and approvals could be costly and time consuming, and we may not be able to obtain any such required approvals in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Any delay or failure to obtain necessary regulatory clearances or approvals could have a material negative impact on our ability to generate revenues. Even if the products containing our technology receive the required[/i]

[ruszja]

Quote from DoctorDalai

[link=https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/09/22/exclusive-interview-the-motley-fool-sits-down-with/]https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/09/22/exclusive-interview-the-motley-fool-sits-down-with/[/link]

Gee, answers all MY questions. Who is this Rankin guy who invented X-rays?

 
Isn’t that the craziest ‘interview’. Much of its bizarreness is just the automatic speech recognition struggling with his accent, but transcribed like that it sounds like its straight from the intake room at the state hospital.

[ruszja]

Quote from vaporfly

One last thing I’d add is, I poured over everything they’ve publicly disclosed about their achievements, and I can’t figure out what their “secret sauce” is.  They described using a micro-array of molybdenum nanocones as their electron source.  But that idea has been around since Spindt first described it 50 years ago.  Has no one else tried this idea and gotten it to work?  And even assuming they did manage to get their cold cathode to work, maybe they should consider putting out a mobile X-ray unit first?

 
The secret sauce: It’s ‘nanotechnology’ stupid ! And 5G uploaded to the cloud, using AI annotation.
You still dont get it. Its from israel, so its innovative by default. And its AI, that means it can suspend the laws of physics. Oh, and there is synergy between this, and that. And AI, remember…
 
 

[ruszja]

Does someone have Donald Trump Jrs email ? This should be right up his alley. Get him on the case to make sure the FAA approves this in an expedited manner to ‘cure covid’ and we should see a nice bounce in the stock.

[satyanar]

Quote from Ryanl

@vaporfly If it is true that the image in that video is not where the picture came from, I will sell my shares. I am wondering if you all here believe the same.

 
You have not sold yet?! The radiologists that noticed the arm position issue were quite observant although that what radiologists do! I suppose it is possible that the pictures of the phantom in the ARC and the images were obtained at different times. Also an important issue is the placement of the nodules in the phantom if it is true that phantom comes without nodules. 
 

[jun52.park]

You have almost all radiologists on here saying the claims are not possible (actually, any radiologists on here believe their claims??) and then a week later you have two financial groups writing reports about this company being a fraud.  Time will tell, but definitely not liking the prospects.  Also, tried to short, in the 60s, 50s, and 40s….no shares available.  The big boys are already in waiting for this to be a penny stock. 

[ruszja]

I so hope that they fabricated data for a 510k submission. Its all fun and games until someone gets hauled off to pound in the ass federal prison.

[ruszja]

Btw. You dont need an FDA cleared product to do an IPO. But you should have something, I dont care if you get it approved for veterinary use in Korea, but show me a machine and some images.

[carlosadube]

 

Quote from Thread Enhancer

   
I love it. Someone came in here and used our discussion to help write a short report.

 
I’m upset .. they didn’t include snapshots of my posts!!  boo hoo .. I could have been famous like the Dr Dalai

 
 

[Unknown Member]

Just a note that USARAD is also a customer and investor, not just an advisor.
It also looks like there is another short report today. 

[ruszja]

I watched some of the videos. Sounds like a game of ‘buzzword bingo’
 
5G
Cloud
AI
Synergy
Covid
Remote Medical
Big Data
AI
Early Detection

[Unknown Member]

Yes, that is true. They or their VC investors do seem to have promoted their company/stock. I am trying to look past the hype as well as the panic promoted by Citron to understand whether this may, in fact, be a viable investment.

[satyanar]

BTW you came to the right place if you want to get some real intel on the technology. You cannot trust anyone on the investment sites. They are either trying to pump or scare people to feed their short position. If you just pay attention you should be able to make a wise decision. If you think you are going to change someone’s mind based on the buzz words fw pointed out it’s not going to happen.

[lisa.kipp_631]

Honestly, I dont know after seeing the video. I could see how that would be near a ct after processing. Anyone else have any ideas?

[rwalmsley_851]

Stock piece looks like its been on a roller coaster ride. Up big now back down to about where it started.

Sounds like some class action lawsuit?

[satyanar]

If one follows volatile stocks like this it becomes apparent that there is almost always a class action lawsuit when the price falls dramatically. Lawyers you know.

[ruszja]

If someone told me ‘hey, we came up with a new way of building a semiconductor based x-ray tube and it has the following advantage due to form-factor/spectrum/energy efficiency’, I would look at it and maybe throw some money their way.
 
But this guy claims that he is going to cure cancer, dental caries, corona and bring about world peace with his new technology. Between that, the buzzword babble and the fact that they made forward looking statements that based on my knowledge of the subject matter I believe to be unrealistic, it is my opinion that until proven otherwise, this is an IPO fraud.

[afazio.uk_887]

Will be interesting to see if this company joins Nikola into the dust bin of Theranos

[jdlebamoff_432]

Not sure if you’re serious about educating yourself here, or if you’re here with an agenda to defend what’s obviously a fraud.  But in case if you’re curious, go check out the Muddy Waters report from this morning.
 
[link=http://d.muddywatersresearch.com/content/uploads/2020/09/MW_NNOX_09022020.pdf]http://d.muddywatersresea…9/MW_NNOX_09022020.pdf[/link]
 
In fact, I find it very curious that you used the exact same phrase as they did on page 8, “no filtering, no image processing, no collimation”, in what appeared to be a private message.  If you’re indeed CB or work for him – awesome stuff.  I’ve been a fan for a long time.  But if you aren’t related to Muddy Waters, I am curious how you came across the exact same quote.
 
For everyone else, check out the Muddy Waters report.  It’s a hilarious read.

[Unknown Member]

@vaporfly I am trying to download the report but for some reason it has stalled. I am postponing judgement until I read it in full. The comments they posted on their Twitter account seem speculative, but I read some saying that the report may be less so.
 
FYI, the quote is on the video: [link]https://vimeo.com/393593220/27cfd413ca[/link]
 

[Unknown Member]

I finished reading the first couple of pages. Do you all agree that the images in that video aren’t of the phantom?
Edit:
If page 9 is accurate, that would explain the marketing and who chose the terms, etc. to use.
Page 12 is a little misleading. The data was said to have been collected at hadassah for the RESUBMISSION in August, I believe.
As I continue to read it, there are other quite misleading points to “These doctorscould not or would not acknowledge that there was a NNOX machine being used on patients”. They are using this in the context of implying that the machine doesn’t exist at Hadassah, but that does not seem to be what was said. I don’t think Nanox ever claimed the machine was being used on patients
Ah, I see you guys are famous now on page 17 🙂

[carlosadube]

So if (probably IMHO) NANOX is a fraud … what does that say about USARAD and their CEO?  Will NANOX drag USARAD down with them?  Hard to imagine if NANOX is a fraud that USARAD was fooled .. more like a partner in the deception