Jump to content

CMQ


mminion

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

BSA looks like they all bought at higher levels, the shorters from $5 are laughing all the way to the bank http://www.ShareScene.com/html/emoticons/wink.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: gordonco on Sunday 13/02/05 11:44am

Not only is CTF's technology not patented, as nodil pointed out - affording the company no protection for their intellectual property - but I could find no scientific basis for their claims to improve poultry rearing (the only area of apparent direct competition with CMQ), as per their website:

 

Poultry Rearing

 

The use of Citrofresh in many phases of poultry rearing has shown outstanding results. These results arise from great improvements that have been made possible in bird health with the use of Citrofresh Furthermore, due to the use of Citrofresh, there have been large reductions in bird deaths caused by feed problems and disease. The number of breeders brought to market has been proportionately increased and there is a definite reduction in time from farm to market for a given weight increase target.

 

By using Citrofresh, the same reduction in deaths caused by disease has been observed. Increases in egg production have also been observed due to the elimination of intestinal problems arising from bacterial contamination of feed.

 

Citrofresh is most effectively applied in two separate forms during poultry rearing, firstly as a liquid addition of Citrofresh 14W to the water supply for the birds and secondly as a direct solid food additive in the form of a yeast based product (ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“Biocite-AquaÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂ). The remarks above on the cleaning and sanitisation uses of Citrofresh for working surfaces and buildings can be applied with equal force to poultry breeding and living areas.

 

Where the poultry are processed after slaughtering, the application of Citrofresh14W at low levels of concentration gives demonstrably, increased shelf-life, and reduces loss due to spoilage.

 

Non-specific, general claims about "great improvements...in bird health" for unpatented technology which has not been scientifically backed and does not mention whether anitbiotics are still required for disease control in chickens COMPARED to the following for CMQ:

 

PATENTS

 

Chemeq - over 80 granted patents worldwide, including the USA, and countries within Europe and Asia. More than 175 patents pending which, if granted, will take potential manufacturing and marketing monopolies past the year 2020. Key patents are comprehensive, and all intellectual property is 100% owned by Chemeq.

 

SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN

 

*Studies and/or field trials in Oz, South Africa, USA, NZ and UK have demonstrated the safety & efficacy of CHEMEQ for pigs and chooks, AS A COST-EFFECTIVE, HIGHLY POTENT REPLACEMENT FOR ANTIBIOTICS.

*Proven in vitro activity against such microorganisms as:

- Gram-positive/Gram-negative bacteria

- bacterial spores

- mycobacteria

- protozoa

- viruses

- yeasts

- fungi

 

Refer to CMQ website for Specific details

 

As stated above, CHEMEQ is being marketed as an effective replacement for antibiotics. I could see no such claim for CTF, along with no patent protection and no scientific backing for chicken health improvement as claimed on their website - please correct me if I am wrong here.

 

I wish CTF well with their venture. But comparing CHEMEQ with Citrofresh (as you have attempted to) is akin to comparing a Ferrari with a scooter. http://www.ShareScene.com/html/emoticons/stun.gif

 

cheers

marnice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: Thumbs Up on Sunday 13/02/05 02:43pm

QUOTE
I don't think there are to many products anywhere near the $$ value per 20 ltr drum of Antimicrobial.

 

Heaps of chemicals are that expensive and some require no special conditions for shipping as they are not corrosive etc etc.

 

As an example a family member buys food grade additives / preservatives in 1000 litre chassis pallet drums from Germany (plastic 1000 l pallet drum is $1000 in bulk to start) at similar value and pesticides and herbicides and most concentrated pharmaceuticals by Bayer etc. Perfumes and many raw products for manufacture all are 10-to 100 times that expensive and more difficult to ship with fixed moisture / light / movement / constant circulation/ temperature/ atm pressure/ vibration / impact / corrosive limits but others seem to manage.

 

They are tagged , sealed and slipped into a container and wow oh wow it make it here every 8 weeks with a 3 month expiry date for my example. Logistics shippers customs brokers and specialists do it every day.

 

Half the herbs or spices in your kitchen cupboard have that sort of value per pallet and I won't even mention alcohol to be packed in Australia. What's 1000l of concentrated scotch worth retail once diluted??.

 

The announcement was a beat up joke. Ask the management to explain why it was any different to exporting a concentrated poison or stable pharma of any type???

 

I understood it to be stable in shipment as a liquid and have a long lifespan or do we need to ask that question again as well??

 

Jess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: neo99 on Sunday 13/02/05 12:07am

Thanks Neo I wasn't aware they had to be successive batches I had assumed that as long as they were the same starting and finishing compounds and the exact same process was followed they were certifiable as a test batch. That makes the hurdle even higher in my mind especially if they haven't announced progressive results of approval. This means you would let the plant lay idle between batches to confirm product before beginning next batch process. Interesting as I was told % was very variable in batches so no chance of approval on that basis but so much false and incomplete info has been spread I wonder.

 

3* 32 days with a few to validate product and quantity in between from when we know they started approval and we come up with ...................... oops past that date already.

 

Would like to know an update of what batch they are up to if any as it would clarify this.

 

Jess.

 

Shame about my PS as with common sense and moderation?? I hoped I would never have to say it. Hope it works for all of us and we get facts not talk through our hats as it would be much easier to see company direction that way- we all benefit don't we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: gordonco on Sunday 13/02/05 11:44am

gordon,

 

The essence of my post is a justification of the price of $600k/t, or $1m/t as stated by knotta. If you don't like my assumptions there is another set you could try, operating in the reverse direction, that might work better for you. At 100g extra growth (worst case, compared with current antibiotic use; I think the proper comparison is with no treatment, placebo) from CMQ's product (BTW, that's the figure you should challenge) producers will gain about 40c (OK, halve it, 20c). So how much would you personally pay to gain by 20c? Maybe you would be prepared to pay 7.8c? The quantity of Chemeq to achieve that is 78mg, and 7.8 cents for 78 mg is $1m/t (that's arithmetic, nothing more).

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: nodil on Sunday 13/02/05 02:01pm

Nodil,

QUOTE
Subsequently another order worth $1.5m for poultry treatment to a quite separate buyer in South Africa - this is the one for which delivery has been postponed - has been written at a price of about $600 - $700 per tonne of contained antimicrobial (API). This figure is in the Rights Offer Prospectus.

I skimmed through the rights prospectus and I could not see the information you stated to be there. Will you be kind enough to indicate where in the prospectus that you found them? Just in case you misplace your prospectus, an electronic copy is available for downloading at:

www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/getAnnPdf('/asxpdf/20040910/pdf/3msxx5cjlq6br.pdf',%

 

Interestingly, while scanning the rights prospectus, I came upon the statement:

QUOTE
3.3 Competitors (& repeated at 5.11 Marketing):  Intense competition exists in the markets for antimicrobials and relate products and the risks exists that one or more competitorsÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ products in development now or in the future prove more efficacious, more cost effective or more acceptable to the market or regulatory bodies than the CMQ polymeric antimicrobials.
Where there is intense competition, where is the scope for raising prices? Well, I can think of STI & IMU as potential competitors from Oze. I donÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢t think we can write-off the existence of overseas competitors.

 

Cheers.

 

PS: Thumbs up ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“ that WA to NZ logistic announcement is a monumental joke! As Jess rightly points out, there are MANY airfreighted goods worth many times that and obviously almost everyone should have heard of freight insurance as stated by Gordonco.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: brunosch on Sunday 13/02/05 08:58pm

brunosch,

 

"Based on Chemeq's pricing assumptions the 50,000kg p/a facility has a potential to generate $36m - $45m gross revenue (before distribution costs) p/a."

 

This is quoted from the Chemeq web-site:- Chemeq company presentation - 2004 (August 2004). A lot of this stuff appears in the Rights Prospectus which came out about the same time, and clearly I should have not relied on my memory. Apologies for that.

 

$36m - $45m per 50 tonnes equates to $720 - $900 per tonne which, after making a guess at and taking off distribution costs, gets the numbers into the range I posted.

 

The $1m per tonne price has been around and quoted and requoted for ages.

 

Intense competition? This is just one of a large number of the sort of generic negative disclaimers which ASIC requires in prospectuses. That style of negative language permeates the Rights Prospectus.

 

I know I cannot do anything about it but have a whinge at this point, but I do feel ASIC would be doing the country a service if, rather than insisting on a very pessimistic and subjective bias, it saw its role instead as ensuring that a neutral line was taken in the presentation of prospectuses - and not just in Chemeq's case - and let investors assess the facts for themselves. Besides having to emphasise the negatives throughout, the format of any prospectus has to include a separate section on "Risk Factors" - but none on "Success Factors".

 

With the ASIC attitude of highlighting only what might go wrong instead of balancing that with what might go right, no wonder Australian share prices are generally depressed in world terms resulting in Australian companies being such easy prey for overseas raiders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: nodil on Monday 14/02/05 02:23am

Nodil,

QUOTE
This is quoted from the Chemeq web-site:- Chemeq company presentation - 2004 (August 2004). A lot of this stuff appears in the Rights Prospectus which came out about the same time, and clearly I should have not relied on my memory.

I am glad we clear this fact up as you made the statement that it was given in the Rights Propectus to back DavidÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s assertion that the $1M/t is a standard figure that was around for a while and he (David) was using a conservative figure of $600/t in his fabulous calculations.

QUOTE
Quote: Let me refresh your memory. The $1m/t standard figure was provided by Dr Melrose without any proof or basis ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“ just his statement. The fact that this standard figure has been for a while (several hundred years) or repeated 100 times does not make it any more conservative. If anything, Dr MÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s statements on completion time (train timetables) have been repeatedly wrong. Why is his statement of $1m/t more credible than his train timetable? Therefore all your calculations based on Dr MÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s standard figure will be wrong if this standard figure is wrong.

There is a very big difference between what appears on a company website and what appears in a prospectus. The earlier is self-advertising (ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“what may go right!ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂ) while the later is only permitted to contain facts. Half-truths or false information in a prospectus have very serious consequences for the company as well as the directors which is why investors can generally rely on representations in a prospectus. For simplicity, the parallel is like comparing ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“factsÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ in dinner conversations and ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“factsÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ in a police report; one is chalk and the other is cheese.

 

Notwithstanding ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“(quoting Nodil): The $1m per tonne price has been around and quoted and requoted for agesÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ when credibility is at the lowest, this should be treated as ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“puffÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ unless collaborated by independent sources. ASIC do not prevent a company from making a factual statement of selling price in a prospectus! The website statement is ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“a potential to generateÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ wishy-washy opinion statement based on 50tpa when they are now struggling to get 20tpa right (and by others account - 3tpa!!).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: Marnice on Sunday 13/02/05 04:20pm

Marny,

 

Re CTF: Not only don't they have any IP, they don't intend to either (prospectus); they intend their formula to remain secret, so obviously no patents. This means that it is not possible for an independent scientific study to be conducted because it is not possible to confirm that the ingredients in the formulation used in the trial are the same as that marketed. It would be quite consistent with their secret formula to conduct a trial with added CMQ or an antibiotic. If you think I'm joking, I know of a case where exactly that was done with human pharmaceuticals (in the case of human pharmaceuticals scrutiny is intense, so there was never any hope of getting away with it).

 

It also seems that CTF doesn't manufacture its product, but buys it from a company with associations with a director. There are also options and deferred shares about 2x the number of listed shares. In an ASX announcement on 5/1/05, up to 38m shares will be assigned from the manufacturing company to the CEO if certain EBIT targets are met (no explanation of why). That seems to about equal the entire number of currently listed shares. From the prospectus (when they were Plexus): Contributed equity $13.5m, Accumulated losses $12.6m. Do you reckon we could float those dogs of yours?

 

David

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...