About

NaNOx Chronicles is a blog about all things NaNOx.  Please carefully review the Legal / Terms of Use section prior to accessing the contents of this blog.

This blog is a work in progress - the goal is to serve as a repository of all things NaNOx. It is mainly for organizing the author's opinions.  Comments and questions are welcome, and may be posted in the comments section at the author's discretion.

The author uses a pseudonym (an alias or a pen name) to protect the author's privacy.  The author can be contacted at richard*x*roe@gmail.comwhere each asterisk (*) is replaced with a dot (.)

Revised: December 19, 2020



58 comments:

  1. I work in the MedTech space since 20 years. I know this is a total fraud but currently I am burning money due to my large short position...

    Please keep posting here and on yahoo board. You are the only sane voice that gives me hope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any proof ?
      I mean that you work in the Medtech
      another fake account

      Delete
  2. The problem is that I simply don't know who you are. Telling that you have been working in the Medtech for 20 years may also mean that you hold a janitor position in a MedTech company.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey guys,

    Please write more on Nanox fraud. I like your point of views.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Richard Roe сlaimed that Nanox had not filed anything with the FDA organization, now we can see that this is not true as the company has received approval. The author of this blog is a liar. Don't waste your time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope. I claimed (and still do) that there are reasons to believe that Nanox never submitted anything for FDA clearance, or, if it did, it did so fraudulently. Nanox did not receive approval, according to its press release - the press release says clearance of a single-source device which the company does intend to ship/sell/distribute/market/commercialize/offer.

      Delete
    2. [corrected] ... the press release says clearance of a single-source device which the company does NOT intend to ship/sell/distribute/market/commercialize/offer.

      Delete
    3. i sure your mother is really proud of you you are more smart and intelligent than all the engineers and Scientists that work with SK the giant Korean semiconductor company, Fujitsu, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other profesional partners on Nanox
      what you think that SK put one dollar at nanox before they deeply test the product ?

      Delete
    4. I was unaware of any engineers and scientists that work with SK, Fujitsu, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other professional partners on Nanox. Can you name them?

      If SK did any testing of Nanox "product," then SK are knowing participants in an international conspiracy to defraud investors and government agencies all over the world. You better hope SK did not do any testing - then SK simply failed their shareholders.

      Delete
    5. Ruth Atherton, Ph.D., J,D.
      from the Global Health Division of
      Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
      one example of well known scientist

      Delete
    6. Ms. Atherton is not a scientist at all. She is a lawyer. And she does not work for Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. She has never seen any working Nanox.ARC, as Nanox.ARC is fake.

      Delete
    7. just to remind you all that the people that saying that nnox is fake also said that Tesla is Fake
      https://nypost.com/2021/08/12/tesla-short-seller-no-longer-hostile-to-elon-musks-bulls-t/

      Delete
    8. I have not met Mr. Block, although I have read his research and agree with many of his points regarding Nanox. I do know, however, that Tesla paid money to settle fraud charges: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226

      I am not sure whether SK are a bunch of idiots or fraudsters. I do know that the President of SK Telecom Hong Kong Office was a convicted criminal. He is now the Chairman of Nanox Korea.

      Delete
  5. What is happening in the RSNA Demo at 2:34 in the background? That appears to be an inflatable MRI scanner. (The woman in yellow shoes walks around it three times.) NANOX is also tapped to the wall on the right.
    In the first 55 seconds of the video Ran's eyes dart several times to the right...who is subconciously glancing to from the 7 people are overseeing the live feed at 24:44
    Very low budget software for a 2 billion dollar company
    https://www.radiantviewer.com/
    Are .bat (batch files required for a live stream?)
    RSNA.bat and Reconstruction.bat on the monitor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See https://nanoxchronicles.blogspot.com/2021/01/random-youtube-comments.html


      The machine in the back of the warehouse is not an MRI machine (those typically have a "chimney" for the liquid helium cooling system) . It is a Canon CT machine (although some radiologists do indeed think it is "an inflatable prop, just like the company"). Nanox will say they have it so they can use it as a predicate and compare Nanox.Arc images with the CT images in preparation for 510(k) submission of the multi-source Nanox.Arc. You cannot use someone else's "online" clinical images in a 510(k) submission - the FDA will reject such a submission.

      The DICOM software is indeed low-budget, but, IF YOU LOOK CAREFULLY, YOU WILL SEE THAT NANOX DID NOT EVEN PAY FOR A LICENSE - it is using the free trial version that is about to expire!!!

      Excellent catch about RSNA.bat and Reconstruction.bat - I missed that. I will have to watch again!

      Delete
    2. its not enough you bullshit in twitter ?
      did you see the machine in real life like SK ?
      or Fujisto ?

      Delete
    3. SK have clearly not seen any working Nanox machine in real life, as Nanox.ARC is fake (at least, it was fake as of December 1st last year). Who is Fujisto and why does she look at machines? If you mean Fujifilm, Nanox own website showed that Fujifilm's own equipment proves that Nanox used a bad tube, resulting in a horrible underexposed radiograph.

      Delete
    4. that not true - SK team come to bar-eilan several time to test working nnox-tube and approve to SK management that that nnox technology is working - that done before SK put one send in nanox

      Delete
    5. If that SK team knowingly misled SK management, then they will be fired and asked to provide compensation to the victims of the fraud. Nanox.TUBE is fake, because Nanox.SOURCE chip is fake. There is no such thing as Nanox technology. Nanox is a fraud.

      Delete
    6. from my resource SK management sent few teams and also external well know consulting firm from the US to check

      Delete
    7. So, either those teams lied to SK management, or SK management knowingly facilitated fraud and participated in a global criminal conspiracy, and defrauded its own shareholders. You pick!

      Which US consulting firm has "checked" Nanox.SOURCE or Nanox.ARC? This is the first time we hear about such a consulting firm. It is impossible for any such consulting firm to check either the chip or the tomosynthesis device, since they are both fake.

      Delete
    8. Richard, if you are so sure of your claims, why do you write under a pseudoname? Let me guess... you are spreading false information and cannot expose your treu identity because that might expose you to a lawsuit, or expose your relationship with someone who sponsors your full time job of bashing nnnox.

      Delete
    9. @Abodarcho: I write anonymously for many reasons, including personal safety. However, anonymity usually does not provide any protection in a lawsuit these days, except in very special circumstances, as any good lawyer will tell you. Regardless, if you find ANYTHING that is false here on my blog, please let me know! I will review and correct, if needed. But I also urge you to get that tech white paper fixed - the fraudulent one about which you were arguing some months ago that "a person who copied the charts from the original source and pasted them side by side did a poor job." It is now in its second edition and it is still out of focus, thereby proving that Nanox is a complete fraud, and the stock is down 50% since you commented here. By the time you get Nanox to fix its paper, the stock will be down 100%. You better hurry up!

      Delete
  6. The agreement with the Mexican distributor is with a marketing agency and a quick google shows a landing page with stock photos, the company apparently does approx $200,000 in revenue a year.
    The Australian Agreement is with a beverage supplier and if you do the may based on their stated revenue of $14 per 7 scans a day, 23 scans a day the math doesn't even add up.
    "Due to COVID" they couldn't travel to the Foxconn facility and are currently using a fabricator in Isreal to make a few units, all in the recent 20F filing.
    COVID has actually been a convenient thing to have no peer reviews, business travel, inspections, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would be grateful, if you could share more details about the Mexican distributor. The person behind it appears to have set it up just for the Nanox agreement (I think his main business was distribution of water dispensing machines) and he seems to own property in the United States, but I could not get any further definitive info (and I don't want to bother chasing corporate records in Mexico, which is a big pain).

      The Australian distributor seems to be involved in a lot of businesses. I did not know they had disclosed revenues...

      The Israeli fabricator has not completed even one Nanox.Arc unit yet, according to the 20-F annual report.

      No travel is required for manufacturing these days.

      Delete
  7. Hello there,
    This vid just push out by Nanox, Please analyze and write something about it. Thanks guys, love your blog

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, surprise, surprise. Nanox has recently made that video PRIVATE ( look at https://www.nanox.vision/newsroom-media for the June 8, 2021 Nanox Tube video). The video is indeed still available at https://vimeo.com/547844181 ). Turns out CEI will not be manufacturing any Nanox tubes, or any other cold cathode tubes. The whole thing was faked, by two desperate companies - CEI and Nanox.

      Delete
  8. Sorry i fogot the link: https://vimeo.com/547844181

    ReplyDelete
  9. Perry J Pickhardt on the Nanox Leadership page. He might disappear from there soon. Did Nanox steal his ID? One day he's there and the next....?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the Advisory Board, actually. He is "an adviser or consultant for Zebra Medical Vision," now NanoxAI (source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262686v1 ). Pretty bad, but not completely shocking.

      Delete
  10. I am interested, when you call the nanox tube fake. How to you justify them getting FDA clearance for their Nanox Cart X-Ray System, which uses Nano-x's
    Cold Cathode tube. (see https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf20/K203782.pdf)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Nanox CART "system" is fake. The FDA submission was fraudulent. In fact, the FDA kicked out the third party that recommended the clearance to the FDA, ADAS, for fraud. There is absolutely no evidence that the CART used any cold-cathode tube - and it definitely did not use the ceramic one brandished by Poliakine during the RSNA 2020 "demo," as Poliakine admitted subsequently. Remember, the FDA also cleared a Theranos "device."

      Delete
    2. Could you provide some link for this ADAS?

      Delete
    3. What do you mean "provide some links?" Didn't you read the document you linked? It starts with "℅ Rafael Aguila, Responsible Third-Party Official, Accelerated Device Approval Services, 6800 S.W. 40th Street, Ste. 403
      LUDLUM FL 33155." Google for it, and you will find this: https://www.fda.gov/media/151597/download

      Delete
    4. Hi again, I have been trying to look at the document that got ADAS's license withdrawn but I can't seem to find it. Looking at https://www.fda.gov/media/148803/download it seems that the document I am looking for is 'ADAS
      June 28, 2018 accreditation application' (as stated on line 6-7 of page 1). Do you know any more details maybe about this?

      Also in the same document they mention "and misleading representations about CDRH’s regulatory
      communications to one of its clients, Cryptych Pty Ltd" but if this was such a big problem why did Cryptych Pty Ltd go to in 2020 ADAS for another FDA clearance? (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf20/K200705.pdf)

      Delete
    5. I already linked the August 2021 document with which the FDA removed the ADAS accreditation for fraud: https://www.fda.gov/media/151597/download . In fact, the FDA should have never allowed Rafael Aguila (a known fraudster using several names) to serve as a Responsible Third-Party Official, but ADAS filed a fraudulent document to with the FDA to become a Third Party in 2018. He was knows as a fraudster by year 2016 (defrauded a Court!!!).

      Delete
    6. The thing that I wanted to know is if Cryptych (the company that ADAS was getting FDA clearance for in that case) worked with ADAS on this fraud or ADAS did it without Cryptych knowing about it. The way I read the document Cryptych didn't know about it. Which makes it a lot less worse for nnox as well right.

      Delete
    7. Hard to figure whether Cryptych knew that ADAS was a fraud (and that is why it signed with it, but then it did not want to pay the "extortion" fee), but it should have known, because Aguila was publicly identified as a fraudster in 2016 by a court. The FDA should have noticed, too (although the application listed another person, also known under different names, as the owner of ADAS). It would be too much of a coincidence that Nanox hired an FDA consultant (Daniel Schultz) that was kicked out of the FDA for approving useless, unsafe devices, and then used Third Party that was fraudulent, no?

      Delete
  11. Richard X Roe is a fake account that try to play short on nanox for long time , nnox open a factory in Korea with SK telecom semiconductors wind , SK will not invest ,millions in fraud for 4 years

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure what a fake account is, but this blog is quite real. The so-called factory in Korea is fake (real building, but obsolete, non-functioning equipment plagued by the Y2K bug that can't make any working chips or tubes), and SK knows it (that is why SK did not present at the "opening" ceremony of the "operational" Fab in April). SK got into this fraud because of Mr. Kim, then President of SK Telecom (HK Office), now CEO of Nanox Korea, and a convicted felon. SK and its subs have a history of facilitating foreign frauds (SK Telesys "partnered" with the fraud Energous, for example).

      Delete
    2. we all know Richard is a short player see in Twitter how Choice Choi make joke from his lies

      Delete
    3. The family group of Nanox Arc patents seems to be broadly classified into four(4) categories.



      Physical, electrochemical, material engineering, and operational matrix complementation to solve the problem that the current on the anode decreases due to the Oxidation (unknown) occured in the tube in the process of realizing the cold cathode of the MEMs Chip Based Source, that has the performance degradation problem(trouble) make improvements. Therefore, long-term driving(operation) performance has provided through various experiments and evidence presented.
      A TUBE according to the patent of the first group of Operation Matrix to attenuate (protect) ion bombardment damage through multi-year experiments to find the optimal composition ratio, physical properties, and constituent materials at the electrode tip (cone - angle, height) of MEMs, which is the basis of long-term stability; protection circuits, performance continuation mechanisms, etc.
      Through the first and second group, efficiency of Xray radiation matrix and detection mechanism of Arc architecture (applied to actual multi-source), economic feasibility that can occur when operating with 10 or more sources, and operational safety, etc.
      First, second, third group, 3D tomosynthesis implementation method is presented, and concrete measures that can be used in various clinical trials adoption cases are presented.

      Delete
    4. Choice Choi does not appear human - it is almost certainly a cheap chatbot that utters his own Choiglish language and fails the Turing test. I guess that is quite funny.

      Delete
    5. Nanox ARC, TUBE, and SOURCE are completely fake, and patents are fraudulent and unenforceable. There is no such thing as MEMs. There cannot be oxidation in the tube (which is supposed to be a vacuum x-ray tube). 3D tomosynthesis is a very old and failed modality - it is never "usually appropriate" for any medical imaging procedure, and Nanox implementation of it is simply unusable.

      Delete
    6. You made an error here. 3D tomosynthesis is used quite successfully in breast imaging. Not that that means anything for NNOX

      Delete
    7. Anonymous - you are correct - I always try to qualify with "except for breast, which ARC cannot do," but I slipped here. So, my statement should read: 3D tomosynthesis is a very old and failed modality - it is never "usually appropriate" for any medical imaging procedure (except for breast), and Nanox implementation of it is simply unusable. The reason I slipped, of course, is that Nanox itself admits that Nanox.ARC cannot be used for breast. Nanox writes: "Nanox.ARC is not intended to support ... breast tomosynthesis."

      Delete
  12. Company like SK know to cut lost when they stop to believe the product
    The fact that the factory working 24H i invite you to visit the location and than talk . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, SK did not cut its ties with Energous, even when it knew that Energous was a fraud. Nanox Korean fab is fake and is not working 24 hours - it is not producing any functional chips or tubes and it has not even fixed its website nanoxkorea.com (which promises obsolete chips for home appliances). What would you expect from a subsidiary headed by a convicted criminal?

      Delete
  13. Imaginary factory . . .
    According to the fake profile Richard X Roy they using old bakery equipment to produce chips
    check the video yourself and decide a real factory or a bakery ?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcrBBia47rU

    ReplyDelete
  14. This fancy Fab building is full of OBSOLETE PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT only. Take a look at 1m:09s in the video you linked. https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhMwdLHwhZ6JOLtYdyqkf2M-0BJxQnnIuk_JK8LS0f2fDtoDY2_qsIcVTEPFL9cksJcgsnCUpZ6QTF10LkpGZQN61lZR0iYI3RrgZ5DwFXP6yq6-QYzrYGihEfc0n395xN8p-MqRPpXUsE5_XH-y2E0AyjATlNulgt2KJYNwFvdixpckwG111J-Jg9/s1355/Y2K.png You will see that the AMAT CENTURA machine is obsolete and suffers from a Y2K bug (shows the year as 1922) and its chambers are offline. Based on the serial number, it was probably made circa 1996 (26 years ago!!!) and was probably picked from a junkyard for free. The same holds for the other equipment, too (nanoxkorea.com website has a nice inventory list of the obsolete equipment). The new Fab cannot make any chips, potato or silicon, and has never made any chips, as confirmed by Nanox management at the April "opening" ceremony - only defective wafers. Who is "Richard X Roy?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have the full link for the inventory list?

      Delete
    2. Yes, the list is available at http://nanoxkorea.com/process-business/ . The website has not been updated this year, so presumably this is the equipment initially placed in the temp Fab last year (some other stuff was added this year, based on the April video).

      Delete
    3. what would be your top 3 smoking guns other than the 6-K that I can refer to SEC?

      Delete
    4. You mean top 3 facts that prove that Nanox is a fraud? It depends on your level of technical sophistication. I would take a look at the 20-F filings - they are signed - and there are sufficient discrepancies there that prove that Nanox is a complete fraud. But the easiest proof, I think, is the picture of Nanox.SOURCE available on Nanox website - anyone who knows chips will realize that it is a drawing of non-working PCB with a heatsink, not a chip. Since every Nanox device is supposed to use Nanox.SOURCE, it immediately follows that all Nanox devices are fake (and thus all submissions to the FDA are fraudulent).

      Delete
  15. what you wanted to find machines for 5nm ? for the chips that nanox need to make this is the right machines to use

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope - a " highly advanced fabrication plant" (as described by Nanox press release) doesn't need 5nm processes. But the 150nm machines are simply not functioning (as evidenced by the snapshot I provided). Even the Korean attendees at the opening ceremony admitted that the operational Fab cannot make any chips (it demonstrated some defective wafers, though). Of course, since Nanox.SOURCE chip is completely fake, you don't need any equipment to make it - just a drawing app and a photoshop.

      Delete
  16. look at Twitter where real expert proof that Nanox is real and Richard is a fake account try to play short

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't fully understand what you wrote, but what is the Twitter handle of that "real expert" and can you link the tweet with the "proof?" Nanox is such an obvious fraud - you don't even need to be an expert in anything to figure it out.

      Delete