NaNOx Chronicles: UncleMaxie thread that Nanox does not want you to read

For archival fair-use purposes. Please consult the terms of use before attempting to use the information below.
version: 2021-01-13 22:07:52
| :

TurboEcho | 08/17/20 05:17AM :

Interesting IPO on 8/21.

https://www.nanox.vision/

Out of Israel. Already have contracts for 3000 units to US in February and 1000 to Australia. Pending FDA approval.

Thoughts?

CA radiology | 08/17/20 05:27AM :

What are they going to be used for? Which setting? seems very limited to me. maybe urgent care centers as a marketing tool?

FlyNavy | 08/17/20 05:47AM :

Looks like a cross between iPhone and CT ... perhaps they are looking for a niche in the personal CT scanner option ... I can see many patients exceeding the "1 scan per person per year" mantra that they are espousing! Hell .. we will get some patients who would prob hop on the table several times a day! The "Cloud based network of Radiologists supported by AI" = AI 99% ... prob very few Radiologists ... but if every person on planet got one scan per year ... wow 6 billion scans that need to be read ... bet the RVU per study goes waaaay down! So patient in Afghanistan or Mozambique gets their scan and they have cancer??? I guess they then get turfed to the robust cancer care network available in their country.

Dumb Luck | 08/17/20 06:23AM :

They'll put them in shopping malls like in the 90's!

RoleCall | 08/17/20 07:36AM :

Couldn't find any sample images. Probably garbage.

MSK/SW | 08/17/20 08:00AM :

MSK/SW | 08/17/20 08:03AM :

'radiology specialists provide'......
Pretty vague. One of the Advisory Board members is from USA RAD telerad company, another from the UWash CT dept.
Interesting. Radiation exposure risks ? reading protocols 'from the cloud anywhere by anyone? quality? no contrast of course. Motion on that little table with that small circle disk over the top? Home section of the website show some interesting stuff, but no final images of live human beings.......will follow w/ interest....

FlyNavy | 08/17/20 08:14AM :

They say "Radiologists" in their video ...

DoctorDalai | 08/17/20 08:30AM :

This is a big fat FRAUD until proven otherwise. Slick website, impossible architecture, NO IMAGES, empty promises. I've emailed them and asked for images and details but get nothing in return.

Of course, the MBA's will blindly invest in a polished turd that has AI stamped on it.

FlyNavy | 08/17/20 08:57AM :

I noticed that they are selling the "cloud based" storage and AI technology as well .. perhaps hardware is just a marketing hook to launch cloud based AI ? ...

MSK/SW | 08/17/20 09:03AM :

Other on their board is from Gates fndtn.
Global.....imprint aligns w/ this.
Agree w/ above RE AI and 'pie in the sky'.

spongiform | 08/17/20 10:13AM :

in 1950's a pocket sized computer was inconceivable
just sayin...

Xtatero | 08/17/20 10:20AM :

[quote=spongiform]

in 1950's a pocket sized computer was inconceivable
just sayin...
[/quote]
We aren't talking about the miniaturization/compartmentalization of technology. We're talking about whether or not this is a suspect company a la the Theranos scam.

spongiform | 08/17/20 10:45AM :

it does sound fishy

RoleCall | 08/17/20 11:21AM :

If it worked, there would be images available somewhere. Scam

DoctorDalai | 08/17/20 01:14PM :

We've looked at this before..

Again, I smell a big Theranos-style rat. The "ring" actually has an arc of 7 or 8 or so of their "filament" x-ray tubes. I suppose that with careful sequencing of the tubes and translation of the ring across the patient, the nanox.arc could produce some sort of tomographic images. Sort of like the old GE Hawkeye SPECT/CT that created really awful CT images.

I filled out the form on the website and asked for some images...which cannot be found ANYWHERE!

Rad1Brad | 08/17/20 09:29PM :

I imagine the imagine quality will be useful to screen for >10 cm tumors, and confirm that patients have liver, brains, and hearts. Perhaps even screening for >5cm subdurals.

MSK/SW | 08/18/20 09:06AM :

Power supply? even w/ images pushed on the web, I would remain a skeptic, 'fake AI rad news' ?

TurboEcho | 08/18/20 10:40AM :

I'm not here to say it is going to work well, and certainly not a 128 Seimens scanner, but I certainly don't think it is fake or the company is fake. They have secured multimilllion dollar contracts throughout the world. I seriously doubt co-investors are throwing these types of dollars at something without some validity. Just my $0.02.

goodkid21 | 08/18/20 11:00AM :

Quick web search. Definitely not a fake company. IPO is Aug 20 (this Thursday).

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4369210-ipo-update-nano-x-imaging-seeks-100-million-u-s-ipo

FlyNavy | 08/18/20 12:41PM :

Their vision of "global cancer screening for the masses" just seems untenable and thus seems disingenuous to me ... I am not saying they are fake company. .. just dubious of their intentions and overall strategic goal ... I think they just want to sell a sh$t ton of medical scanners, Cloud space and AI ...

DoctorDalai | 08/18/20 12:42PM :

Theranos was a "real" company with over $1B in investments. But the product was a pure scam.

RISPACS Guy | 08/21/20 12:46PM :

Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NNOX) debuted today at $18.00 share. Was at $21.74 +$3.74 (+20.78%) as of 3:42PM EDT and hit a $25.00 intraday high. Volume was ~9.5M shares.

NANO-X IMAGING LTD ("Nanox" or the "Company"), an innovative medical imaging technology company, announced today the pricing of its initial public offering of 9,178,744 ordinary shares at a price to the public of US$18 per share. The gross proceeds of the offering, before deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering expenses payable by Nanox, are expected to be US$165.2 million. In addition, Nanox has granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 1,376,812 ordinary shares at the initial public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions. All of the shares are being offered by Nanox.
The shares are expected to begin trading on the Nasdaq Global Market under the ticker symbol "NNOX" on August 21, 2020. The offering is expected to close on August 25, 2020, subject to customary closing conditions.
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Berenberg and CIBC Capital Markets are acting as joint book-runners. National Securities Corporation is acting as co-manager for the offering.

delawarerad | 08/21/20 01:13PM :

It will slowly bleed to low teens, do a secondary offering, bleed to low single digits, do a 10 for 1 reverse split, bleed...secondary, RS....ive seen this show before...

DoctorDalai | 08/21/20 01:27PM :

They don't appear to have a functioning product. I submitted a request for information for a third time today. I'm not holding my breath.

Just goes to show the incredibly smart MBA's and VC-types can be fooled.

DoctorDalai | 08/23/20 09:05AM :

The Nano.X SEC filing:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1795251/000114036120017084/nt10006151x8_f1.htm

Over 160 pages of disclaimers. The key factors seem to be a "digital X-ray source" and utilization of the cloud. I need to read it in detail.

Summary from The Imaging Wire (https://www.theimagingwire.com/2020/08/13/nanox-demystified-nps-intrusion-radiomics-crisis/_)

Nanox Demystified

There’s been plenty said and written about Nanox since it came on the scene, but aside from impressive funding and plenty of “disruption” forecasts, the company has remained quite mysterious. That just changed with Nanox’s pre-IPO SEC filing, which clarified many of those mysteries.

[*]Nanox Tech – Nanox will build its business around its X-ray source technology, which works like legacy X-ray analog cathodes, but has a range of advantages (lower costs, smaller size, lower voltage). The first Nanox.ARC imaging systems will be 3D tomosynthesis devices, positioned as CT replacements / alternatives.

[*]Nanox Platform – Nanox’s X-ray tech might be its foundation, but its strategy will rely on services delivered through the Nanox.CLOUD platform. This platform will support what Nanox envisions as an “end-to-end” medical imaging service (image repository, radiologist matching & review, AI diagnostics, billing, etc.) and will allow it to offer the devices through a ‘medical screening as a service’ (MSaaS) structure. This will also require Nanox to form partnerships across the imaging process.

[*]FDA Path – Nanox submitted a FDA 510(k) application for a single-source version of the Nanox.ARC system in January 2020 and is currently performing FDA-requested tests that it will submit in Q3 2020. The company also plans to submit a 510(k) application for a multi-source Nanox.ARC system in Q4 2020, which they would take to market if it’s approved.

[*]Commercialization – If FDA approvals go as planned, Nanox will deploy its first Nanox.ARC systems in early 2021, targeting a 1k system installed base by the end of 2021 and 15k systems by 2024. That might seem ambitious, but Nanox believes that its low system costs and MSaaS model will give it growth opportunities in developing regions and disruption opportunities in developed regions.

[*]Risks – There was no shortage of potential challenges detailed in the “risks” section of Nanox’s SEC filing, but the main challenge is that Nanox’s disruption goals will require it to execute an unproven business model using an unproven technology that hasn’t been approved by the FDA. Still, you can’t disrupt an industry like medical imaging by sticking to what’s already established.

Valerian | 08/23/20 07:13PM :

Deploying in 2021 and apparently no one can find a sample image of what it produces anywhere...

DoctorDalai | 08/23/20 07:16PM :

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/393211389

RoleCall | 08/23/20 07:40PM :

If it exists, it's a bad version of dynaCT

DoctorDalai | 08/24/20 06:00AM :

Probably not dissimilar. As near as I can tell, the whole thing is based on solid-state X-ray emitters of which there will be 11 in the ring:

The ring translates across the gantry which I assume has solid-state detectors, and the image will probably be some sort of tomogram that I doubt seriously will look like a CT slice.

The business model is one only a non-technical MBA/VC guy would love. Cheap scanner, cloud storage with "direction to proper radiologist" and of course, the two little letters that serve as little blue pills for these guys, A.I.

They are promising too much based on waaaaay too little infrastructure.

TurboEcho | 09/02/20 06:55AM :

Up 100% since IPO...

boomer | 09/02/20 07:22AM :

Of course you can speculate on the stock price, some people got rich on Theranos; some not. Sell before the scam is up.
I of course believe in progress, and am confident in the iterative improvement of ct technology.
But this is too similar to Theranos; too much of a leap to believe; a magic black box.
Wouldn't invest in it seriously until I could see it work real time.
Dali's insights are on the mark.

Valerian | 09/02/20 07:39AM :

The constant comparisons to cost and size of a regular CT scanner, when this thing is as mentioned, at best a crappy dynaCT, are ridiculous. Motley fool calling it the potential Tesla of healthtech, lol!

irfellow2019 | 09/02/20 07:57AM :

Has anyone actually seen the images this thing produce yet?

DoctorDalai | 09/02/20 10:42AM :

Nope. I've asked them three times to send me something. The next article on the semi-dormant DoctorDalai.com will be about this device with or without their input.

RISPACS Guy | 09/11/20 08:12AM :

NNOX up 20% today to $58.00......Gulp!!!

n.rad | 09/11/20 08:14AM :

https://www.israel21c.org...rams-and-other-x-rays/

So much wrong with everything this CEO is saying

delawarerad | 09/11/20 10:08AM :

[quote=namerad]

https://www.israel21c.org...rams-and-other-x-rays/

So much wrong with everything this CEO is saying
[/quote]

So suspect....this has Theranos written all over it.

jopo | 09/11/20 11:46AM :

Going to wait a little longer, then speculate by borrowing some shares to short.

n.rad | 09/11/20 11:49AM :

The propaganda arm of this company is on Twitter making claims that this is a substitute for mammography and MRI.

It’s hard to watch this company steal from investors.

| :

n.rad | 09/11/20 12:04PM :

People keep saying it can do “no-squish” mammography. It’s kind of painful to read

delawarerad | 09/11/20 12:19PM :

So they are a company that can do all the various types of imaging with a revolutionary new machine.

Remember that company that could test for all of the various diseases with a single drop of blood and their revolutionary new machine...They are literally taking a page right out of Elizabeth Holmes' play book.

n.rad | 09/11/20 12:20PM :

“ Poliakine says Nanox could reduce the time needed to complete a mammogram by a factor of 30. And the system does not require pressing the breasts between two plates.

“That means much less radiation, no discomfort or pain, shorter wait times and a product that is more user friendly,” he says.”

No compression literally means the opposite of less radiation.

RISPACS Guy | 09/11/20 12:26PM :

NNOX now at $62, up 28% on the day, almost 200% since it debuted < a month ago..... double Gulp!!!

delawarerad | 09/11/20 12:29PM :

[quote=RISPACS Guy]

NNOX now at $62, up 28% on the day, almost 200% since it debuted < a month ago..... double Gulp!!!

[/quote]

These kind of parabolic moves based on hype usually dont end well. I wouldnt be shocked if they did another offering before the end of the year to take advantage of the momentum and hype.

FlyNavy | 09/11/20 12:36PM :

[quote=namerad]

“ Poliakine says Nanox could reduce the time needed to complete a mammogram by a factor of 30. And the system does not require pressing the breasts between two plates.

“That means much less radiation, no discomfort or pain, shorter wait times and a product that is more user friendly,” he says.”

No compression literally means the opposite of less radiation.
[/quote]

That is exactly what I thought ... lots of superlatives in this article ... sounds more like a press release than a legit news article.

The CEO is a "serial entrepreneur" ... what is that? Someone who dabbles in everything? Wonder if he understands the physics of what he is selling?

n.rad | 09/11/20 12:50PM :

Here’s another gem from the CEO:

“Most, if not all, cancers can be treated rather easily if found early enough through medical imaging. The World Health Organization says if every person had a full-body scan once a year, potentially millions could be saved by early detection,” Poliakine tells ISRAEL21c.

RoleCall | 09/11/20 01:06PM :

So short it now, or later

DOCDAWG | 09/11/20 01:10PM :

This is obviously BS. They will be claiming they can treat tumors will this machine before long. That being said, they are playing a dangerous game if they are lying. The SEC and FDA won't be too happy with them if they are lying to everyone...

fw | 09/11/20 01:14PM :

[quote=FlyNavy]
The CEO is a "serial entrepreneur" ... what is that? Someone who dabbles in everything? Wonder if he understands the physics of what he is selling?
[/quote]

The last 'serial enterpreneur' I met is currently in month 65 of a 96 month federal sentence :-) He is a nice guy, but it turns out that some of his enterprises involved an activity the feds call 'destroy property used in interstate commerce by means of fire or explosion'.

Think about 'the producers' (the musical). You come up with a harebrained business idea that sounds great to investors, collect a lot of money and pay yourself a management fee out of the proceeds. You hire a revolving cast of 'chief innovation officer', 'chief technology officer' and 'chief counsel', rent a floor of office space in DumBo and get to work eating your investors money. Lasts about 2 years. You move on to the next innovation and money collecting scheme and 'sell' the shares you still hold in the company. The day you leave, your sycopants release guidance to the investors that 'market conditions were not favorable to the product' and the place folds in short order. I am fascinated by how many times you can recycle that concept until it gets more difficult to collect 10 or 20 million.

fw | 09/11/20 01:15PM :

[quote=RoleCall]

So short it now, or later
[/quote]

Any good guesses on how long until they crash and burn ?

n.rad | 09/11/20 01:17PM :

So far the claims are:
It can do all forms of imaging for a fraction of the price, will have ground breaking AI tech which doesn’t yet exist, and also is apparently able to bend the laws of physics.

Sir Read Alot | 09/11/20 02:05PM :

it can also image to the molecular level so you don't need a pathologist anymore. Think "tricorder" from star trek

Thread Enhancer | 09/11/20 02:30PM :

[quote=fw]

[quote=RoleCall]

So short it now, or later
[/quote]

Any good guesses on how long until they crash and burn ?
[/quote]

That's always the problem with attempted shorts. You can just "know" it will fail but get creamed in the timing.

Suprasellar Cistern | 09/11/20 04:14PM :

Enron consistently went up before it failed, too. Best bet is to keep your distance

n.rad | 09/11/20 05:25PM :

per the S1, FDA application came back with deficiencies.

It would be nice to know when the FDA rejection will be for most of the claimed uses. That may be the beginning of the end

n.rad | 09/12/20 04:55AM :

Apparently NNOX has a contract with USARad for tele services.

The plan, per their F1 is to install these in urgent care centers and clinics.

It will truly be on par with Theranos if they are able to trick any clinics into believing this tomo system is a CT replacement as they are marketing it. I could see this getting approved for basic XR and then the marketing to urgent care centers go something like “the approval for mammo and other applications is pending”

Here’s a link to the F1
https://www.sec.gov/Archi...nt10006151x8_f1.htm#tB

“ If cleared, we plan to market and deploy the Nanox System globally at a substantially lower cost than currently available medical imaging systems, such as computed tomography (“CT”),”

Thread Enhancer | 09/14/20 05:00PM :

Stock down 23% today. I mentioned it to a friend on Friday. He does a lot of investing and has done very well. 'Sounds like a good short to me" which he did this morning.

I don't have the guts for that. As I mentioned earlier, there is no doubt this will fail at some point. It's just to easy to be caught in a short squeeze if enough people want to believe the smoke and mirrors.

fw | 09/14/20 06:04PM :

Phillips at one point had a small cheap slow single slice CT scanner. They sold so poorly, in the end if you bought a 16 slice they threw in one of those crap-boxes for free. Even urgentcares need useable images.

Thread Enhancer | 09/15/20 07:24AM :

https://citronresearch.co...arce-on-the-Market.pdf

DoctorDalai | 09/15/20 07:58AM :

Good find, Thread Enhancer. This operation needs to be shut down.

Thread Enhancer | 09/15/20 09:32AM :

I liked this quote:

"Conclusion

This $3 billion science project appears to be nothing more than a complete stock promotion."

Thread Enhancer | 09/15/20 09:35AM :

The friend I tipped and I are planning a wine country event next month.

"Are you still short?"

"I covered 80% of it. Definitely paid for one of our dinners... and the wine too!"

NYPhD | 09/15/20 10:05AM :

NNOX Investor Alert: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Notifies Nano-X Imaging Ltd. Investors of Investigation[/h1] https://finance.yahoo.com...gewirtz-164500766.html

fw | 09/15/20 12:24PM :

[quote=NYPhD]

NNOX Investor Alert: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Notifies Nano-X Imaging Ltd. Investors of Investigation https://finance.yahoo.com...gewirtz-164500766.html

[/quote]

If someone wrote this as a script for a movie, it would be handed back to them with a comment [i]'yeah, you can't put it on that thick, for starters, change the names of the lawyers'[/i].

That's like a crossover episode of 'American Greed' on CNBC with 'Live Rescue' from A&E.

brickydragon | 09/15/20 03:27PM :

Dang. How was he able to short? I tried to look for positions but its so near IPO no shorts were available.

Thread Enhancer | 09/15/20 03:33PM :

[quote=brickydragon]

Dang. How was he able to short? I tried to look for positions but its so near IPO no shorts were available.
[/quote]

Not sure. He's a pretty sophisticated investor and ITB if you will. Was a fund manager at one point. I imagine he has access to things we do not.

brickydragon | 09/15/20 03:42PM :

Yea. I've heard there are creative ways of making shorts around early IPOs. I transferred money into my account in anticipation of options becoming available but it looks like they couldn't keep the scam going long enough. Currently down 40% from peak.

Thread Enhancer | 09/15/20 03:51PM :

I've been looking in on investment sites. It's amazing how bullish many investors are. They are falling for the investment pitch in droves.

I imagine there will be more opportunities to profit on the downside. There are actually analysts out there that think this is going to be a great company. I wouldn't be surprised to see the stock rise again before the truth is finally revealed.

Do we have anyone here with USARAD? I am wondering what their radiologists think.

DoctorDalai | 09/15/20 03:52PM :

If I can interrupt the feeding frenzy for a second...

Let me ask your opinion on how this pretty obvious fraud got this far.

Thread Enhancer | 09/15/20 03:57PM :

If you don't mind hearing my opinion it's pretty obvious when you go and read these online investment sites like stocktwits.com. There are many people that want to be in on the next TESLA or Amazon or Shopify.

When a report like the one from Citrus comes out they believe it's a scam to make money selling short. They are probably right to some degree.

The sale pitch is very good. What I don't understand is what USARAD is buying into. One would think they would know better.

Thread Enhancer | 09/15/20 05:08PM :

I realized there is something else at play. Even seasoned investors are looking for the hot tip based on technical knowledge. When I first asked my friend if he knew anything about NANOX, his first reply was that he had seen they had gone public but hadn't really looked at it. Then he took a look at the stock and said "oh wow, I wish I had bought it last week! Do you like their technology?"

When I responded he quickly changed to "I'm excited to short it now".

Most people have no idea what they are investing in, even the "pros" sometimes.

DoctorDalai | 09/15/20 05:27PM :

Sadly, that is true. One of the smartest people I know has just discovered investing, but he appears to be mistaking a bull market for investment expertise. He mentioned Amazon one day and shook his head. "They call it a tech stock, but I don't know why delivering stuff makes it a tech stock!" I mentioned the fact that Amazon is perhaps the largest presence in the cloud-storage game. "Oh...I didn't know that!"

Thread Enhancer | 09/15/20 05:42PM :

[quote=DoctorDalai]

Sadly, that is true. One of the smartest people I know has just discovered investing, but he appears to be mistaking a bull market for investment expertise. He mentioned Amazon one day and shook his head. "They call it a tech stock, but I don't know why delivering stuff makes it a tech stock!" I mentioned the fact that Amazon is perhaps the largest presence in the cloud-storage game. "Oh...I didn't know that!"
[/quote]

I wonder about this a lot. Are these investors truly "smart" or do they just happen to inhabit a space that allows them great opportunity?

I have three classmates from high school that are extremely financially successful. One runs a venture debt firm. One runs a private equity firm. One runs a firm that invests in real estate and restaurant franchises. They were all top of our class and went to Ivy League institutions. They have each made colossal mistakes that have cost their businesses a lot of money. They have also had home runs that leave them living a life I can only imagine. I'm not sure how much how "smart" they are has to do with it.

brickydragon | 09/16/20 03:02AM :

In delving a little deeper, the absolute ridiculous claims about non-compressive mammography with 1% the dose and single cell resolution is from nanox medical corporation. This is a USA based company with a different logo. Possibly unrelated?

n.rad | 09/16/20 02:40PM :

The idea of this doing that mammography is also unrealistic without a biopsy system which pairs with the imaging system. I pointed that out to you one of the analysts on Twitter who is promoting the stock. Their response was something about the current high rate of false positive screening and how NNOX was going to use AI to eliminate unnecessary biopsies.

DoctorDalai | 09/16/20 02:47PM :

Could you post the link to the Tweet?

Thread Enhancer | 09/16/20 02:49PM :

Nanox Medical Corp does seem to be a different company. They are offering a stand alone mammo unit. This is different than the "ARC" scanner NNOX is touting.

It's quite confusing. Does NNOX state they will be doing breast screening with the ARC unit?

n.rad | 09/16/20 03:10PM :

https://www.israel21c.org...rams-and-other-x-rays/

“Because it’s digital, it’s multispectral. You don’t need different machines to do different kinds of imaging,” says Poliakine. That includes mammography, CT, fluoroscopy and angiography, for instance.“

n.rad | 09/16/20 03:15PM :

https://twitter.com/terra...04080337761259521?s=21

I removed my tweet (I was being accused of trolling for questioning the validity of this company) but you can still see the response.

| :

Thread Enhancer | 09/16/20 04:05PM :

I asked some basic questions on the Stocktwits site and I was immediately attacked. It’s sad. One guy put a large position of his 401k into the stock. It seems the point of the website is to pump the stock and counteract the short sellers. Not learn about the technology.

fw | 09/16/20 04:10PM :

[quote=namerad]

https://www.israel21c.org...rams-and-other-x-rays/

“Because it’s digital, it’s multispectral. You don’t need different machines to do different kinds of imaging,” says Poliakine. That includes mammography, CT, fluoroscopy and angiography, for instance.“
[/quote]

I am sure it's also in technicolor and smells really good.

That guy sounds like a trip.

n.rad | 09/16/20 04:35PM :

I think I just didn’t have enough rocket emojis in my tweets.

fw | 09/16/20 07:02PM :

And its from israel. So its super innovative, you know.

A few years ago, a south african company tried to market a 'slot scanner'. This thing was designed to x-ray the miners every day so they couldn't smuggle gold nuggets out of the mine. They had a test unit at Grote Shur hospital, don't know whether it ever got further than that. It did a whole body plain-film in a few seconds with a fairly low dose. It didn't diagnose breast cancer at the cellular level though.

CaptainWaffles | 09/16/20 08:06PM :

You don't get the prison referrals where they fax across a picture of their low dose whole body grams after someone's sharpied a circle around contraband in the stomach or a big femoral osteosarc with "please find with ct" on the cover sheet?

Thread Enhancer | 09/16/20 08:08PM :

It seems like there are a few physicians over at stocktwits now. I really feel for those caught up in the pump and dump.

FlyNavy | 09/17/20 05:09AM :

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3614142-nano-x-slides-citron-takes-aim-blatant-stock-promotion-seen?mod=mw_quote_news

FlyNavy | 09/17/20 05:16AM :

https://citronresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/NANO-X-a-Complete-Farce-on-the-Market.pdf

dergon | 09/17/20 05:21AM :

[quote=FlyNavy]

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3614142-nano-x-slides-citron-takes-aim-blatant-stock-promotion-seen?mod=mw_quote_news
[/quote]
Target stock price: $0

hah

DoctorDalai | 09/17/20 05:41AM :

I can understand greedy non-medical neophyte investors could get caught up in this dog, but FUJI???? Seriously? Someone is going to be fired.

n.rad | 09/17/20 09:59AM :

Someone just posted this on Twitter and everyone got really excited.

https://vimeo.com/393593220/27cfd413ca

Thread Enhancer | 09/17/20 10:05AM :

Reminds me of when I interviewed at Mayo and they were doing shallow oblique CXRs that you looked at with crossed eyes to get a "3D" look.

n.rad | 09/17/20 10:05AM :

Some kind of 3D tomo/ XR. Don’t see how this is very helpful. They really shouldn’t have been able to say this is a CT replacement in the SEC filling.

Thread Enhancer | 09/17/20 10:19AM :

Yes. That's the crux. Decent radiographs. There is nothing that will allow it to do the MSaaS they are pushing as the revenue source.

fw | 09/17/20 10:48AM :

[quote=namerad]

Someone just posted this on Twitter and everyone got really excited.

https://vimeo.com/393593220/27cfd413ca
[/quote]

I think 'science project' is an apt description. A bit above high-school. Maybe undergrad biomed engineering majors.

fw | 09/17/20 10:49AM :

They do seem to have a decent machinist/fabricator. I have seen worse.

DoctorDalai | 09/17/20 12:16PM :

https://investors.nanox.vision/events-presentations/events

Helen Moss | 09/17/20 02:22PM :

Dr Dalai, from my position as a radiographer (tech) in the UK, I concur with your misgivings about Nanox. Yes, it is Theranos 2.0. l am sure you have read 'Bad Blood' by John Carreyrou. That must be journalists sharpening their pencils about this.

DoctorDalai | 09/17/20 02:27PM :

At least there is finally an image or two available...

NYC | 09/17/20 03:26PM :

From the images, cheap diagnostic radiography capable of functioning in constrained space with associated IT and interpretative support would have markets in developing and developed places... No proof that they can execute on those later aspects. Reduced needs for dedicated technologists, assuming you get good MSK stuff too? I don't see based on these images CT, MRI, flouro, or US being disrupted. I'll wait for abd and MSK demos.

The valuation is WAY OFF. Frankly, I think it would have been a better tech play (as in target for a big player) rather than stand alone business model, if we can take the chip anode tech at face value.

Still skeptical. Reminds me of the Lodox, just a lot cheaper... And, Lodox really doesn't have a place in US practice...

Ed Beretta | 09/17/20 05:03PM :

HAHAHAHA. That video was classic.

Like in the old days when radiologist would call pt down for live fluoro of the lungs to search out a subtle pneumothorax or possible bone island vs nodule.

LOL

Images almost as good as felsons classic 1973 chest roentgonology book...when he teaches of proper work up to include “obliques, buckys, spots and tomos”

Thread Enhancer | 09/17/20 05:10PM :

NYC. That’s what I was thinking. There is some potentially good technology there. It’s just that they are trying to package it in an unworkable model. Then they created a business plan with all of the right buzzwords. Sounds about right for a serial entrepreneur.

docholliday126 | 09/20/20 10:22AM :

Ooops, looks like it's allegedly a fraud...

https://www.radiologybusi...uit-citron-theranos-20

Thread Enhancer | 09/23/20 09:45AM :

[quote=brickydragon]

Dang. How was he able to short? I tried to look for positions but its so near IPO no shorts were available.
[/quote]

Options market is now open...

n.rad | 10/01/20 12:18PM :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ed4JyMeESQ

NYC | 10/01/20 02:07PM :

The modified video adds questions about patient position, particularly for MSK plain films. Table/gantry configuration would make it difficult, particularly with injured/immobilized patients to perform one pass plain films?

Nibbler | 10/01/20 02:23PM :

apparently they will demonstrate it "live" at RSNA

n.rad | 10/01/20 02:40PM :

it’s up 30% after hours on that announcement. lol

fw | 10/01/20 02:45PM :

[quote=n.rad]

it’s up 30% after hours on that announcement. lol
[/quote]

With each of these announcements, someone is clearing a couple of million and someone else is making money while the stock is down from that 'hump'.

n.rad | 10/01/20 02:51PM :

The stock will probably continue to rise as they will likely get FDA approval for single source. It probably won’t be until everyone realizes this isn’t capable of half the claims (CT and mammo) before we see it head back down.

b17b2e | 10/01/20 03:53PM :

People on Twitter are tearing apart radiologists questioning the tech claims.

This is just a crappy x-ray that can't do ct without changing the laws of physics.

Total pump and dump to uneducated investors.

n.rad | 10/01/20 04:40PM :

Yeah, I’ve been watching Twitter. The sad thing is some of the promoters who clearly don’t know what they’re talking about have thousands of followers and are writers for Motley Fool. Lots of investors will be misled.

One guy keeps saying it’s multispectral therefore it can do CT.

It’s eerily similar to this:

https://www.healthnewsrev...om-most-news-coverage/

b17b2e | 10/01/20 04:54PM :

Yup saw the motley fool writer and a Google health fellow ( who is on their advisory board). Motley fool conveniently had an interview with the ceo recently too. Everyone pumping this to uneducated investors must have no conscience.

n.rad | 10/01/20 05:12PM :

The multispectal aspect was really promoted in the F1 and is getting promoted by these guys like it’s some sort of magic.

I consulted for Phillips when they were developing spectral CT. The engineers would show us CT images of the abdomen at various kVp settings. 90% of it was useless.

NYC | 10/01/20 05:49PM :

I look forward to “Radiologists Predicted the NNOX Debalce”...

I want to believe, I really do... But...

Thread Enhancer | 10/01/20 07:14PM :

This thing is being traded like a penny stock. Plenty of room to make money going up or down. We know there is no real value in the product but that won’t stop the “pump and dump” gang or the short sellers that create hatchet job articles, even if they are mostly true.

RoleCall | 10/01/20 07:24PM :

Reinforces my view that stock advice is generally garbage

vaporfly | 10/01/20 08:39PM :

Anyone else find it weird that Nanox will be demonstrating its scanner "live" at the RSNA 2020, "which is being held November 29-December 5 in Chicago" (from the Nanox press release), when the entire conference is supposed to be virtual?

Having said that, it will be interesting to see what they actually show. I'll get my popcorn ready.

n.rad | 10/02/20 04:34AM :

Hopefully there is a Q&A portion.

Questions posed will be very different than those from The Motley Fool and media so far.

“Please elaborate on this plan to scan every human on earth once per year.”

“How exactly will this device perform mammography?”

b17b2e | 10/02/20 07:35AM :

They have a few Radiologists on the advisory board. I wonder if they know that they are being used to legitimize a scam.

| :

n.rad | 10/02/20 08:54AM :

They are going to “crush” allegations at RSNA

https://www.bloomberg.com...witter_impression=true

b17b2e | 10/02/20 09:02AM :

Lol should be interesting...

If anyone is doing rsna this year... Please check it out haha

DoctorDalai | 10/02/20 09:28AM :

RSNA is virtual this year. Nanox can put whatever it wants into a sham video and claim it's a "demonstration". And THEY KNOW IT. Think about it. When have you seen a "live" demonstration of a radiation-emitting device at RSNA? I never have. These people believe us to be incredibly stupid. And it seems that greed is blinding quite a few folks.

n.rad | 10/02/20 09:30AM :

I guess all of these stock promoters and analysts can login and watch RSNA this year if they really want to. It’ll be funny if this session sets attendance records. I really hope we get some good questions.

n.rad | 10/02/20 09:40AM :

The blind leading the blind:

https://twitter.com/stock...12030872800026624?s=21

b17b2e | 10/02/20 12:29PM :

Ignorance.

DoctorDalai | 10/02/20 07:41PM :

I bantered a little with some of the investors...they do NOT want to hear anything negative, and could not care less that I might actually know something about what I'm saying. Sadly, the 23-year-old incredibly arrogant hedge fund POS doing much of the talking will likely make a lot of money on this house of cards.

b17b2e | 10/02/20 08:28PM :

yup ... in a couple months they will be pumping something else.

n.rad | 10/03/20 05:01AM :

It’s funny that the RSNA announcement sent the stock up 50%. The largest radiology event that has representation from most vendors. In reality it would’ve been more surprising if they didn’t attend in some form. It was essentially a non-announcement.

If something as simple as that “news” sends the stock up, there’s probably 100% gains or more in store for it before the company is either sold or goes out of business as there will be many more announcements. Just imagine the investor euphoria when they get approved for single source (which is meaningless).

Making money on it will all be about timing. Some will do well others will not.

b17b2e | 10/03/20 05:09AM :

Yeah that "fda approval" will send it through the roof. That's why you don't short these things, they can perpetuate the fraud for a long time.

n.rad | 10/03/20 05:14AM :

A couple of years ago at RSNA there was a family of custom truck fabricators in the vendor room advertising customizations for portable mammo units... but this is a huge deal that nnox is going.

DoctorDalai | 10/03/20 06:54AM :

Search Twitter for NNOX and you will see the mentality. The 23 y/o hedge fund jerk made it very clear that he knows everything, has been right in all his other predictions, and anyone who actually knows something about something can go do something anatomically impossible. Another said, "Can't fix stupid" referring to me and not Hedgie. Oh well.

RoleCall | 10/03/20 07:11AM :

https://mobile.twitter.com/AustinW05347448

It's not worth your effort to try and prevent guys like this from losing money.

boomer | 10/03/20 07:23AM :

Investment newsletters etc. are so untrustworthy; they are not thorough and believe what they want.
It's about perception, and stock price. The actual product is frequently secondary.
So in the short term, someone can make money, but you have to pay attention and play the game.
Long or short, you are guessing on timing; which is a lot about luck.
Not a stock to invest in and sit on; like Buffet does. Boring companies that make paint, carpet, soft drinks et al are more predictable.

n.rad | 10/03/20 11:00AM :

In the Twitter and StockTwits world anyone who doesn’t promote the stock and tweet rocket ship
emojis is a “troll.”

It’s just bizarre to me that you have people who are professionals in radiology trying to help some of these guys for free and they argue with them.

I was investing in a drug company awhile back and the first thing I did was seek advice from one of our oncologists about it.

I think it’s best to just let these guys learn the hard way and lose their money.

DoctorDalai | 10/03/20 11:19AM :

I contacted the Radiology Department at Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem; apparently I'm not the first. I was referred to Public Relations, and was given this statement (and NOTHING beyond):

The partnership agreement was signed with the company in September 2019. Within the terms of the agreement it was agreed that Hadassah would provide services to the company and there would be a possibility of joint development in the future.[u][/u][u][/u]

In accordance with the agreement, at the end of December 2019, the company's prototype device was transferred to Hadassah for several weeks, during which models made of plastic materials, simulating the human body (not real patients), were scanned. After several weeks the device was taken by the company, before humans were scanned.[u][/u][u][/u]

The company received images scanned by the prototype device that the company had developed, as well regular images of the models scanned by Hadassah equipment.

The possibilities here are numerous.

n.rad | 10/03/20 04:39PM :

Even if this thing could do CT as everyone on Twitter seems to believe it’s way too slow for contrast or breath hold imaging. It’s funny when you point this out and the response you get boils down to “it’s magic”

fw | 10/03/20 05:40PM :

[quote=n.rad]

Even if this thing could do CT as everyone on Twitter seems to believe it’s way too slow for contrast or breath hold imaging. It’s funny when you point this out and the response you get boils down to “it’s magic”
[/quote]

Its not magic, its multispectral superfragilicous !

DoctorDalai | 10/03/20 06:12PM :

I did get one of the gentlemen to back down a bit and say, "Let's revisit this when it's proven." Progress. I guess.

b17b2e | 10/03/20 08:20PM :

but this is the new technology. physics no longer applies...

DoctorDalai | 10/04/20 08:04AM :

As with SARS-CoV-2, the Dunning-Kruger effect has an incredible impact. People mistake reading an article or two for expertise in most any field.

RoleCall | 10/04/20 08:43AM :

This article tries to explain the nnox behavior:
https://beurswolf.com/202...witter_impression=true

"Whenever a company presents a new technology to the newly founded investment crowds on social media, one story can quickly lead to another. A company may be picked up by a financial influencer, who announces his ‘bull thesis’ on such an investment. People start talking about the technology, mostly focusing on the potential to disrupt industries and the world. They start to cook up some high level valuation metrics for the company and slap a huge price target on it.

Before you know it, the only way for the stock is to go up, while the fundamentals do not necessarily support the sharply increasing valuation. It is all about the story. The bigger the hype, the further the price increases. The gap between the fundamental value and the price in this case is what I would like to call the Hype Premium."

"When an investment banker or experienced financial analyst points out a flaw in the reasoning of these investors this may ignite a discussion similar to other academics trying to convince:

flat earthers that the earth is actually a sphere

religious people that humans evolved and were not created by a deity"

zeuses | 10/04/20 09:41AM :

They don't have FDA approval. They claim to have working prototypes.
The CEO has a somewhat shady background. OTOH, if it works and if they get FDA approval I believe it's going to revolutionize radiology.
They're going to do a live demonstration at Radiology Society of North America (RSNA) 2020
http://www.globenewswire....America-RSNA-2020.html
I believe the RSNA conference will make or break them.

from their website

DoctorDalai | 10/04/20 10:08AM :

You've been reading the Twitter threads, and swallowing them whole.

Since clearly you are totally new to the world of Radiology, let me clue you in on one very important factor: RSNA is VIRTUAL this year, thanks to SARS-CoV-2. Nanox will be showing a VIDEO and they can show you whatever they want you to see, and they will NOT show you what they do NOT want you to see. The images you have copied from their propaganda were taken of a phantom (cadaver bones encased in lucite) at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem at the end of 2019. Phantoms DON'T MOVE and can yield an image from a VERY LONG exposure.

THIS SMELLS LIKE A SCAM to anyone and everyone in the field. Frankly, I wish it wasn't. Having dabbled minimally in global-health issues, a cheap scanner that can do everything this thing is supposed to be able to do (but CAN'T, we all promise you) would be very helpful. It might come someday. This is NOT IT.

But go ahead and invest...you don't really care what we say if you are like the other rabid investors I've encountered on Twitter.

zeuses | 10/04/20 10:57AM :

I assumed NNOX would be demonstrating their machine live not a video recording. Thanks for the heads up re: RSNA being virtual this year.

DoctorDalai | 10/04/20 11:00AM :

Administrator? I'm anything BUT an administrator. Please tell us why you think my message was from an "administrator".

dergon | 10/04/20 11:06AM :

Is there a way I can short this?

zeuses | 10/04/20 11:07AM :

I'm a new member not familiar w/ the forum. I was replying to your messages from my email acct not the forum.

Now I know. Thanks

b17b2e | 10/04/20 12:30PM :

buy puts or write calls. I wouldn't do it though. They are heavily motivated to keep the scam going (longer than your investment can stay solvent). RSNA will show something and their investors will go wild. Then they may get approval for some xray source and their investors will go wild. They have lots of levers to pull.

Thread Enhancer | 10/04/20 12:38PM :

[quote=b17b2e]

buy puts or write calls. I wouldn't do it though. They are heavily motivated to keep the scam going (longer than your investment can stay solvent). RSNA will show something and their investors will go wild. Then they may get approval for some xray source and their investors will go wild. They have lots of levers to pull.
[/quote]

This. I mentioned earlier how a friend was able to borrow the stock for a short position a few weeks back. He was originally short @$55. Covered 80% in the low 30s. He then saw the continued decline and picked up a position in the mid 20s despite my telling him there was plenty of "news" that could be used to pump this thing to the moon. I'm sure he's regretting that move. IMO the time to short would be right after the FDA approval when the irrational exuberance sets in. Still even if this thing goes to zero at some point, and it likely will, it's too easy to get squeezed along the way.

zeuses | 10/04/20 12:44PM :

I'm attempting to find out if the technology is real, if so, is it going to disrupt the radiology market.
Their backers and BoD are very impressive I struggle to see how foxconn and others are getting snowed.
Supposedly, they have "agreements" not contracts to sell machines to Mexico and other countries.
You guys know the technology I don't OTOH, when I was a little kid radios had vacuum tubes that were replaced by transistors now transistors are as small as 20 nanometers.

https://www.nanox.vision/our-leadership
https://www.nanox.vision/news-en

Thread Enhancer | 10/04/20 12:58PM :

[quote=zeuses]

Thanks for the reply but I don't do Puts or Calls or Shorts, at this point I'm attempting to find out if the technology is real, if so is it going to disrupt the radiology market.
Their backers and BoD are very impressive I struggle to see how foxconn and others are getting snowed.
Supposedly, they have "agreements" not contracts to sell machines to Mexico and other countries.

https://www.nanox.vision/our-leadership
https://www.nanox.vision/news-en

[/quote]

You are not understanding what we are saying. Even if it is real enough to take those rudimentary radiographs you posted and gets FDA approval to do that, it is not disrupting anything. The whole premise that makes the numbers work is the business plan is MSaaS and linking the images to the cloud for AI/radiologist interpretation. It is at that point when the whole idea falls flat on it's face. There is not one approved screening method that uses radiographs, or a crude hologram that the "ARC" might be able to create.

b17b2e | 10/04/20 12:59PM :

They are getting snowed the same way all the retail investors are....thats what scam artists are good at.

Thread Enhancer | 10/04/20 01:16PM :

[quote=zeuses]

Their backers and BoD are very impressive I struggle to see how foxconn and others are getting snowed.
Supposedly, they have "agreements" not contracts to sell machines to Mexico and other countries.

https://www.nanox.vision/our-leadership
https://www.nanox.vision/news-en

[/quote]

You need to understand that they don't even need to be "snowed". All they have done is lone their names to the company. Actually probably sold their names. I've been offered these types of consulting gigs before. It's hard to turn down stock options if one does not have to do much other than allow your name and picture to be on a website. For the head of the Mexican company I understand he was able to buy shares at $2. That's pretty good incentive to go into a non binding "agreement" to purchase 1000 units.

zeuses | 10/04/20 01:22PM :

OK, you guys are the experts I came here to learn from you and I did. I'm a retired IT guy who spent my career w/ a healthcare provider w/ a nationwide footprint. I'm always looking for disruptive technology.
BTW, attempted to upload an image of a transistor to compare to the vacuum tube but it didn't work.

Thread Enhancer | 10/04/20 01:35PM :

You were smart to do so IMO. Now don't get mad at us when the stock temporarily takes off like a rocket ship emoji! These pumpers are good at what they do.

zeuses | 10/04/20 01:37PM :

I did not know the ceo of the Mexican company bought shares @ $2. It's frustrating NNOX can get away w/ this crap. As previously mentioned, I read the NNOX CEO, Ran Poliakine, had misled a major investor in PowerMat phone charging co.

zeuses | 10/04/20 01:42PM :

Oh no, I'm not mad. I came here for the straight dope and I got it. I'm a big fan of technology and was optimistic about the NANOX hype. And I've enjoyed my exchanges w/ you guys.

DoctorDalai | 10/04/20 03:19PM :

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020158644A1/en?assignee=nanox&oq=nanox&sort=new

Thoughts?

fw | 10/04/20 04:08PM :

[quote=zeuses]
I'm attempting to find out if the technology is real, if so, is it going to disrupt the radiology market.
Their backers and BoD are very impressive I struggle to see how foxconn and others are getting snowed.
Supposedly, they have "agreements" not contracts to sell machines to Mexico and other countries.
You guys know the technology I don't OTOH, when I was a little kid radios had vacuum tubes that were replaced by transistors now transistors are as small as 20 nanometers.
[/quote]

Few here doubt that there is potential in a solid-state x-ray source. And I fully expect, that one day there will be a new generation of x-ray equipment using such sources, including CT scanners with multiple sources and small 'arcs' of detectors instead of the 'big tube, large sector' we have right now. There is lots of of potential in such a technology and every imaging equipment manufacturer has people working on this.

I have a problem with the exuberant claims made by the company for their equipment. Those claims just dont match up what the technology can achieve even if it works. Add to that a lot of suspicious behaviors such as distribution agreements with entities that are not in the business of distributing medical imaging equipment, and it just raises the question whether its a scam A-Z.

We had this in aviation about 20 years ago. A software executive pumped an investment scheme surrounding a 'very light jet' (VLJ). The company was called 'Eclipse Aviation'. Everything was new, everything was different, they opted for a cruise-missile engine instead of a commercial aircraft engine etc. The promise was that the resulting jet would be sold at a sub 1mil price point when comparable products from the market leaders (Cessna and Embraer) sold at 3-4mil. In the end, they DID produce a cute little jet that actually fills a market niche, but no amount of slick brochures was able to suspend the laws of physics. It had a range much shorter than the initial concepts, carried less and still cost 2.5mil out the door. So instead of pumping out 1000 pieces a year, they built about 270 before the outfit folded. Oh, and they had an 'order' of 1400 jets on the books, from a new company (Dayjet) that was marketing a 'point to point' jet transportation service that would revolutionized private jet travel.
20 years later, Cessna and Embraer stopped selling their own VLJ products and the 250 or so owners of the little Eclipse 'jetlings' are scrounging for parts and support. It simply didn't work, as you cant suspend the laws of aerodynamics just with a flashy powerpoint.

| :

zeuses | 10/04/20 04:35PM :

". . . It simply didn't work, as you cant suspend the laws of aerodynamics just with a flashy powerpoint."
I remember that. Sixty minutes did a segment about them.

n.rad | 10/04/20 05:27PM :

One of the things that I keep seeing all over the place including the Bloomberg article on this company is how “they are disrupting 100 year old legacy technology.”

This is such a joke like there isn’t constant innovation in medical imaging. All of our CT scanners at my hospital now using deep learning instead of iterative reconstruction, we use spectral or dual energy scanners, even the tables are carbon fiber with memory foam for the patients. It’s funny people think this tiny little company is disrupting all these aspects of imaging because MF called it the “Tesla of medical imaging“

The arc may be capable of cheap low energy x-ray generation plus whatever sort of crappy hologram the 11 source array makes.

I think a more appropriate comparison is the 65 VW beetle of medical imaging. There may be a market in the developing world but not in the US today.

DoctorDalai | 10/04/20 05:36PM :

The patent I cited above is registered to Nanox but the inventor is from Japan. Fuji is not mentioned. My quick read suggests what many have been saying from early on...this thing might be able to produce some form of tomosynthesis, which would match the few images they have released. But the emitters are of such low energy that the acquisition time would be prohibitively long, even to get these limited results. The hype surrounding everything makes it clear that these guys have very little idea of what is really needed. Their analysis ignores just about [i]everything[/i] beyond the fact that their emitter is cheaper than a conventional rotating-anode tube.

zeuses | 10/04/20 05:45PM :

"One of the things that I keep seeing all over the place including the Bloomberg article on this company is how “they are disrupting 100 year old legacy technology.”. . . "

As you pointed out Technology is not static. Years ago, my first PC was a XT computer slow w/ limited memory. If NANOX has legitimate technology I assume it will not be static and it will improve.

DoctorDalai | 10/04/20 06:06PM :

You are still thinking this is something great. It isn't. They aren't Apple or Dell. There might actually be a core of usable tech here, but the fact that they have cloaked themselves in AI hype, agreements, and reading contracts before the first human image is acquired should tell you that the tech is NOT what is being sold.

zeuses | 10/04/20 06:28PM :

I agree, until they produce quality scans from patients it's vaporware.

n.rad | 10/04/20 06:41PM :

One more thing regarding the original patents: If the major vendors had any interest in this type of source technology when it was developed why would Sony not have just licensed it?

Thread Enhancer | 10/04/20 07:16PM :

[quote=zeuses]

I agree, until they produce quality scans from patients it's vaporware.

[/quote]

That’s not the point. Even if it takes quality radiographs it still is not disruptive in any way. The only way it is disruptive is if it takes CT quality images. That is not possible.

n.rad | 10/05/20 04:35AM :

The x-ray source may be less of a novel design than I had thought. This article is from 2010 discussing more than one company with similar technology( https://www.technologyrev...ortable-x-ray-machine/ ) A brief search I found some other companies advertising XR generation without the moving components.

With a market cap approaching 2 billion people are betting on the Tesla like disrupter angle that has been portrayed in the media based on a combination of false /overstated and meaningless claims: arc as a CT replacement, "cloud" whatever, AI - which would be provided by third parties.

n.rad | 10/05/20 10:19AM :

Sorry to keep beating the dead horse here but one more issue: NNOX is not even on the RSNA list

https://www.rsna.org/annu...industry-presentations

I think I’m getting off Twitter for awhile. Can’t take it anymore.

DoctorDalai | 10/05/20 10:22AM :

Good catch!!! They'll probably have some video session during RSNA week. These are fakers extraordinaire.

fw | 10/05/20 11:01AM :

[quote=n.rad]
The x-ray source may be less of a novel design than I had thought. This article is from 2010 discussing more than one company with similar technology( https://www.technologyrev...ortable-x-ray-machine/ ) A brief search I found some other companies advertising XR generation without the moving components.
[/quote]

What are the odds, they even have the same electron microscopy image of the emitter ?

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/working-flat-out/

This is getting curiouser and curiouser.

n.rad | 10/05/20 11:10AM :

Lol. Nice find.

n.rad | 10/05/20 11:24AM :

I’m not sure if someone else posted this but I assume everyone saw the second short report on them:

https://www.muddywatersre...nnox/mw-is-short-nnox/

FlyNavy | 10/05/20 11:24AM :

[quote=DoctorDalai]

I bantered a little with some of the investors...they do NOT want to hear anything negative, and could not care less that I might actually know something about what I'm saying. Sadly, the 23-year-old incredibly arrogant hedge fund POS doing much of the talking will likely make a lot of money on this house of cards.
[/quote]

https://mobile.twitter.co...W05347448/with_replies

Dr Dalai - Oh my goodness that twitter dime bag has a potty mouth!! Ha ha ... he tweets like he's in a constant '-roid rage'

Thread Enhancer | 10/05/20 11:28AM :

Typical discussion: So all they need to do is reply "yes" and the stock goes to the moon!

"Following is from other chatting room, "If some of you wondering I asked NANOX whether their device works as a CT yesterday and they replied me today. Yes their device works as CT. So all hospitals will use their CT. Who would want to pay for millions of dollars?"

n.rad | 10/05/20 11:42AM :

Brad Freeman is the Motley Fool writer who is really promoting this on Twitter as a CT scanner. The verbatim statement from the F1 they will throw at you reads "As such, the system 3000 may be incorporated into an improved computerized tomography system..."

He has taken this to mean the arc can do CT better than "legacy CT systems" Completely discounting the phrase "may be incorporated" i.e. would likely require significant modification: more sources, different detectors, reconstruction algorithm etc.

Don't waste your time trying to explain this. He'll just immediately block you.

https://twitter.com/mattg5289/status/1311891622968397824?s=21

n.rad | 10/05/20 11:55AM :

I directed them to a physics site that shows what CT images look like with different degrees of back projection.

The response I got was “you’re stuck on what your legacy equipment is capable of”

Thread Enhancer | 10/05/20 12:32PM :

The fraud is getting more intense and yet the price keeps going up. Time to look at the options chains again!

fw | 10/05/20 12:39PM :

[quote=n.rad]

Brad Freeman is the Motley Fool writer who is really promoting this on Twitter as a CT scanner. The verbatim statement from the F1 they will throw at you reads "As such, the system 3000 may be incorporated into an improved computerized tomography system..."
[/quote]

Would be interesting to know what trades Mr Freeman has executed on Nanox.

n.rad | 10/05/20 12:40PM :

Supposedly the FDA approval announcement may come out Wednesday. Expect a parabolic move.

https://twitter.com/terra...13116270775033857?s=21

n.rad | 10/05/20 01:31PM :

Also, Apparently you cannot do demos at tradeshows unless approval is pending. So they are working against a pretty tight timeline here. They will have to first get approved for single source and then have a pending approval for multi source to pull off the RSNA charade.

Thread Enhancer | 10/05/20 02:08PM :

[quote=n.rad]

Supposedly the FDA approval announcement may come out Wednesday. Expect a parabolic move.

https://twitter.com/terra...13116270775033857?s=21
[/quote]
That would be the time to buy puts if one is so inclined.

n.rad | 10/05/20 02:18PM :

Possibly. It may run up leading to RSNA.

n.rad | 10/05/20 02:21PM :

As someone else stated there are lots of levers for them to pull.

zeuses | 10/05/20 03:07PM :

"Yeah that "fda approval" will send it through the roof. That's why you don't short these things, they can perpetuate the fraud for a long time."

I'm up 50% will probably dump it tomorrow morning.

zeuses | 10/05/20 03:10PM :

..

DoctorDalai | 10/05/20 03:26PM :

That's a different company. But the are on the new list dropped today:

https://rsna2020.mapyours...or-list.cfm?export=pdf

zeuses | 10/05/20 03:34PM :

I see NNOX on the vendor list you posted. Thanks
Nano-X Imaging Ltd
Nanox Vision known as Nano-X Imaging Ltd

zeuses | 10/05/20 04:05PM :

MuddyWatersReseach.com is one of the many reasons I don't own any Chinese equities.
MWR has been sued several times but as far as I know they have never lost a lawsuit though I haven't checked recently. Earlier this evening I decided to sell NNOX. After thinking about it I'm going to recoup my investment then ride out the craziness w/ the rest of NNOX.

DoctorDalai | 10/05/20 05:38PM :

I've learned over the years that investing in general is governed about 99% by emotion, and about 1% by fact. I have no doubt that SOME of those with cojones of steel, and brains of cellulose, will make money on this thing, real or not. Others will lose it. I do not have the intestinal fortitude to play this game. I only invest in things I completely understand. Your milage may vary.

zeuses | 10/05/20 05:54PM :

Excellent points. I've done very well investing in what I know I bought Microsoft, Apple, and others during the late eighties. In 1997 moved them to a new ROTH account. One of Apple's splits was 17 for 1. Never had the need or desire to take anything out of the ROTH. On May 1st '20 I bought Digital Turbine, APPS, it's up 532%
Buy what you know is great advice.

vaporfly | 10/06/20 06:10AM :

When I checked a few weeks ago, they had 3 patents issued in the US, covering the emitter, the detector and the whole system, I believe. Nothing really stood out in the patents, other than fleshing out some of the principles Spindt first raised 50 years ago. But then again, I'm not an expert on this stuff so there might be some magic in this that the patent reviewer found novel or compelling.

I do think it's misleading that Nanox keeps harping about how their technology is the result of $1bn+ in R&D by Sony (which they scooped up for almost nothing). Sony spent all that money trying to make a flat-panel TV to compete against LCD, and it lost. Very hard to say how much of that, if any, was actually useful for creating an X-ray emitter.

[quote=DoctorDalai]

The patent I cited above is registered to Nanox but the inventor is from Japan. Fuji is not mentioned. My quick read suggests what many have been saying from early on...this thing might be able to produce some form of tomosynthesis, which would match the few images they have released. But the emitters are of such low energy that the acquisition time would be prohibitively long, even to get these limited results. The hype surrounding everything makes it clear that these guys have very little idea of what is really needed. Their analysis ignores just about [i]everything[/i] beyond the fact that their emitter is cheaper than a conventional rotating-anode tube.
[/quote]

vaporfly | 10/06/20 06:14AM :

[quote=zeuses]

I did not know the ceo of the Mexican company bought shares @ $2. It's frustrating NNOX can get away w/ this crap. As previously mentioned, I read the NNOX CEO, Ran Poliakine, had misled a major investor in PowerMat phone charging co.
[/quote]

This company is beyond shady. Check out their SK Telecom deal. They "convinced" SKT to partner with them on producing the emitter chip and got SKT to buy over 1mm shares at $16/share. What they later disclosed in the regulatory filings was that the SKT executive personally got options for 1.2mm shares for free, 6 months prior, with a strike price of $2.21. I'm pretty sure that is a fire-able offense (if not downright illegal) in almost every respectable country in the world.

fw | 10/06/20 06:25AM :

[quote=vaporfly]
I do think it's misleading that Nanox keeps harping about how their technology is the result of $1bn+ in R&D by Sony (which they scooped up for almost nothing). Sony spent all that money trying to make a flat-panel TV to compete against LCD, and it lost. Very hard to say how much of that, if any, was actually useful for creating an X-ray emitter.
[/quote]

I would have to look at it further, but it seems to me that Sony was interested in building small electron 'guns' to illuminate one pixel at a time rather than the traditional CRT design with a standing 'gun' and deflection coils. Making x-rays was probably a side effect of that panel design, not the goal.
Do you happen to have the patent numbers ?

vaporfly | 10/06/20 06:28AM :

The whole idea of using a solid-state/field-emission X-ray source is old and people have been working on it for decades. The article you quoted below is slightly different. Yes it is still using a rectangular array of micro-cones with gates to focus the electrons. But the emitter materials are different (LiNbO3 vs some type of molybdenum alloy).

If you're interested in a solid-state X-ray emitter already on the market, check out CareStream's DRX Revolution Nano mobile X-ray. It uses a CNT-based emitter, doing exactly what Nanox claims to achieve (one day). Nice device and has some potential, but not exactly replacing CTs around the world.

[quote=fw]

[quote=n.rad]
The x-ray source may be less of a novel design than I had thought. This article is from 2010 discussing more than one company with similar technology( https://www.technologyrev...ortable-x-ray-machine/ ) A brief search I found some other companies advertising XR generation without the moving components.
[/quote]

What are the odds, they even have the same electron microscopy image of the emitter ?

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/working-flat-out/

This is getting curiouser and curiouser.
[/quote]

vaporfly | 10/06/20 06:50AM :

[quote=fw]

[quote=vaporfly]
I do think it's misleading that Nanox keeps harping about how their technology is the result of $1bn+ in R&D by Sony (which they scooped up for almost nothing). Sony spent all that money trying to make a flat-panel TV to compete against LCD, and it lost. Very hard to say how much of that, if any, was actually useful for creating an X-ray emitter.
[/quote]

I would have to look at it further, but it seems to me that Sony was interested in building small electron 'guns' to illuminate one pixel at a time rather than the traditional CRT design with a standing 'gun' and deflection coils. Making x-rays was probably a side effect of that panel design, not the goal.
Do you happen to have the patent numbers ?
[/quote]

You are absolutely correct that X-ray production was a side effect of Sony's goals. That's why their claims of $1bn+ R&D is meaningless.

Nanox's patent numbers are 9922793, 10242836 and 10269527. Their patents are still a bit general and doesn't go into exactly what their cathode material is, and we have no idea what current they're actually able to generate with their source.

fw | 10/06/20 07:02AM :

[quote=vaporfly]
Nanox's patent numbers are 9922793, 10242836 and 10269527. Their patents are still a bit general and doesn't go into exactly what their cathode material is, and we have no idea what current they're actually able to generate with their source.
[/quote]

'Investments' is what they are able to generate ;-)

Seems like an interesting concept, lots of potential if it works. Maybe it'll bring peace in the middle east while we are at it.

n.rad | 10/06/20 07:29AM :

SK Telecom seems to be hiring people to develop new and more plausible applications for the MEMS/source.

https://twitter.com/terra...12062995720069120?s=21

Seems the primary aim of the “arc” science project was to raise the stock price.

fw | 10/06/20 08:55AM :

[quote=vaporfly]
If you're interested in a solid-state X-ray emitter already on the market, check out CareStream's DRX Revolution Nano mobile X-ray. It uses a CNT-based emitter, doing exactly what Nanox claims to achieve (one day). Nice device and has some potential, but not exactly replacing CTs around the world.
[/quote]

Lol.

So there is already a product on the market that does exactly what they are claiming.

Having solid state source with a much better energy efficiency eliminates a few constraints in the design of a CT scanner. A basic CT for use in a urgentcare may well take advantage of those changes in design constraints. But I have a feeling the box will say 'Siemens', 'Shimadsu' or 'Neusoft' on the outside, not 'Nanox'.

| :

n.rad | 10/06/20 09:17AM :

MICRO-X CT:

https://micro-x.com/products/the-future/

Thread Enhancer | 10/06/20 09:33AM :

[quote=fw]

[quote=vaporfly]
If you're interested in a solid-state X-ray emitter already on the market, check out CareStream's DRX Revolution Nano mobile X-ray. It uses a CNT-based emitter, doing exactly what Nanox claims to achieve (one day). Nice device and has some potential, but not exactly replacing CTs around the world.
[/quote]

Lol.

So there is already a product on the market that does exactly what they are claiming.

[/quote]

Which is why they are confident they will get FDA 510 (k) approval which will send this rocket ship to the moon!

n.rad | 10/06/20 11:32AM :

Lots of similarities here:

https://micro-x.com/technology/cnt-technology/

“But the most exciting new applications involve arrays of miniature x-ray sources which can be electronically switched in sequence to produce a moving x-ray beam from stationary components. Conventional CT scanners rotate a giant x-ray tube quickly in a gantry to scan patients; Micro-X’s technology can do this with no moving parts.”

fw | 10/06/20 11:41AM :

[quote=Thread Enhancer]

Which is why they are confident they will get FDA 510 (k) approval which will send this rocket ship to the moon!
[/quote]

What carestream is lacking is the AI and 'cloud' mumbo-jumbo, and the promise of world peace.

IF they get a 510k for their planar system, it is basically an admission that they have nothing special.

n.rad | 10/06/20 11:50AM :

I think the 510 K process is much easier which is the main reason it's used. There’s a lot of criticism around it as devices have been approved in the past as “substantially equivalent” which may have not been so equivalent after all and ended up harming patients.

https://www.shouselaw.com...amesh/fda/fdaapproval/

n.rad | 10/06/20 12:14PM :

BTW it seems AuntMinnie has been discovered by the rest of the internet.

I’m seeing screenshots from this discussion being posted on various chat rooms.

DoctorDalai | 10/06/20 12:30PM :

We should charge them for the privilege.

n.rad | 10/06/20 12:34PM :

Lol. Agree.

fw | 10/06/20 01:27PM :

[quote=n.rad]

Lots of similarities here:

https://micro-x.com/technology/cnt-technology/

“But the most exciting new applications involve arrays of miniature x-ray sources which can be electronically switched in sequence to produce a moving x-ray beam from stationary components. Conventional CT scanners rotate a giant x-ray tube quickly in a gantry to scan patients; Micro-X’s technology can do this with no moving parts.”
[/quote]

Just like the electron beam CT. It'll take over, I tell you....

n.rad | 10/06/20 01:53PM :

https://www.nature.com/ar...s41598-018-32505-z.pdf

If I’m interpreting this correctly it looks like in order to create a CT image with stationary sources this group had to rotate the 7 sources 15 times (based on the CAD illustration) so a total of 105 stationary sources would’ve been needed to generate a CT image.

The arc has 11?

Thread Enhancer | 10/06/20 02:00PM :

[quote=fw]

[quote=Thread Enhancer]

Which is why they are confident they will get FDA 510 (k) approval which will send this rocket ship to the moon!
[/quote]

What carestream is lacking is the AI and 'cloud' mumbo-jumbo, and the promise of world peace.

IF they get a 510k for their planar system, it is basically an admission that they have nothing special.
[/quote]

What's funny is they spell this out in their business plan. The bulls somehow think this 510k means something.

n.rad | 10/06/20 02:15PM :

The thing I don’t get is how is this fraud still going? It would just take a 10 minute phone call between the SEC and some engineers or physicists to spell it out.

RoleCall | 10/06/20 02:20PM :

You would think.... CEO is famous for high level deception. There are just enough distorted truths mixed in to keep people believing.

n.rad | 10/06/20 03:14PM :

In the proof of concept paper that I posted above they simulated a ring by rotating the stationary sources around and were able to generate an OK image. This wouldn’t even be possible when you add detectors thus the semi circle designs. So let’s assume you can jam 50 sources into an arc and create a crappy image. It would have a very narrow subset of uses. Honestly, I don’t even know if the Micro-X plan is realistic: EMTs administering TPA in the field based on some low resolution CTs? Who would sign up to read those/take on the liability?

n.rad | 10/06/20 03:27PM :

...but at least they aren’t saying they’re going to screen every human on earth once a year.

Thread Enhancer | 10/06/20 04:09PM :

Love the sarcasm NR. The headline from a Seeking Alpha report:

[h1]Nano-X: Scanning The Entire World, One At A Time[/h1]

n.rad | 10/06/20 05:27PM :

The crazy thing is so many people have actually bought into this concept, even other physicians on social media.

I was just reading a thread where the objections presented on this forum were mentioned and then disregarded as “those guys just don’t want to learn how to read something new”

DoctorDalai | 10/07/20 10:26AM :

[quote=n.rad]

https://www.nature.com/ar...s41598-018-32505-z.pdf

If I’m interpreting this correctly it looks like in order to create a CT image with stationary sources this group had to rotate the 7 sources 15 times (based on the CAD illustration) so a total of 105 stationary sources would’ve been needed to generate a CT image.

The arc has 11?
[/quote]

The paper from Nature is for a COMPLETE RING of detectors and sources, which they compare to a PET scanner ring, and THAT topology would work. But an arc or 7 or 11 sources on a ring that translates in the Z-axis will NOT be able to produce a true tomographic image. Tomosynthesis, maybe. But NOT true CT.

Here are some screen-caps from the nanox.vision site's demo video, which I believe was acquired at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem:

Notice that the sources are all at the top of the "ring" in an "arc"...NOT A COMPLETE RING!

Also...

I've been wondering about the detectors. The prototype DOESN'T HAVE ANY! They used a simple DR plate for the phantom studies. Little problem there, eh?

Thread Enhancer | 10/07/20 10:44AM :

Anyone recognize the vendor of that DR plate? I was chastised on Seeking Alpha and told I probably wasn't a radiologist because I didn't recognize it.

In case one needs the password!

"There are just too many working or retired radiologists here. It is very easy to check whether they are for real: if they don't know what detector is used by Nanox in the videos, they are either incompetent or not radiologists. Maybe you know who made the detector and the software?"

vaporfly | 10/07/20 10:45AM :

I assume the detector is supposed to be hidden inside the couch, right below the arc?

Given that they appear to be using their device for tomo, maybe they can use third party (flat) digital detectors and then just overlap their magical machine learning AI algo over the data!

vaporfly | 10/07/20 10:52AM :

[quote=Thread Enhancer]

Anyone recognize the vendor of that DR plate? I was chastised on Seeking Alpha and told I probably wasn't a radiologist because I didn't recognize it.
[/quote]

https://www.2020imaging.n...ts/dr-panels/momentum/

n.rad | 10/07/20 11:01AM :

None of these images show where they are hiding the flux capacitor.

Thread Enhancer | 10/07/20 11:03AM :

Thanks vapor. Show of hands among the radiologists here that recognize that detector from the video? Maybe I'm just incompetent?

n.rad | 10/07/20 11:12AM :

I always check the detector brand right after I do the equipment QC and clean the room

Thread Enhancer | 10/07/20 11:15AM :

I love it nr. I see it's a Konica-Minolta subsidiary. Do you also change the toner on the Bizzhub while your at it?

It's strange because the guy with the radiologist competency test also thinks the ARC is a fraud. I'm not sure what angle he is taking.

vaporfly | 10/07/20 11:57AM :

TE - I just went to seekingalpha and read that thread. I have no clue what that guy (Ricard X Roe)'s angle is. On the one hand, he's trying to teach himself x-ray physics, real-time, by reading a textbook (and asks some pretty dumb/confusing questions). On the other hand, he lectures about how 11 stationary sources can "definitely" get you "image quality of commercial CT or even way better", like a goddamn boss.

Oh, and he's implying that had you known the vendor of that "widely-used DR" detector you'd understand why the images in the new Nanox video are still fake? I'm really not following.

Thread Enhancer | 10/07/20 12:10PM :

Join the club vaporfly. It truly is bizarre. I can't tell what he is trying to argue. There are two threads now. No more answers.

"Or do you believe that an X-ray traveling downwards attenuates differently from an X-ray traveling upwards along the same path? If you do, you live in another universe"

I thought this was particularly good.

fw | 10/07/20 12:12PM :

Note the roll of electrical tape to keep the DR plate at the correct angle so the cadaveric hand is imaged straight-on.

vaporfly | 10/07/20 12:34PM :

[quote=fw]

Note the roll of electrical tape to keep the DR plate at the correct angle so the cadaveric hand is imaged straight-on.

[/quote]

Haha, you know, I was thinking of the same thing.

So when I first saw Nanox's promo video, I remember looking at the images and thinking to myself - the blurry images on the right side of the screen (presumably the real images) look kinda choppy. I thought it was probably laggy because they didn't have enough computing power to handle the real-time reconstruction. But now that you eagle eyes noticed that they're using a portable detector, it dawned on me! They don't have an integrated detector built into the couch that can slide up and down with the arc. So when they faked the video, they probably had to pause the machine every few seconds to physically move the portable detector under the phantom to get a new slice, and that's why the images seemed so choppy/laggy!

What a piece of work.

n.rad | 10/07/20 01:16PM :

Did anybody read this?

https://www.google.com/am...y-fool-sits-down-with/

When asked about quality his response was “an X-ray is an X-ray.”

He also talks about the spectral aspect saying it can “look into your brain” as well as breast tissue.

It can also see into your soul

DoctorDalai | 10/07/20 01:27PM :

Yeah, and William Rankin invented X-rays. I have no words.

Thread Enhancer | 10/07/20 01:31PM :

Yes, I subscribe to TMF. Their coverage is not investigative in any way. The questions were decent but there was no follow through because IMO the interviewer does not know enough to realize they are being duped.

I think they are looking for another story they can pump and add to their premium services. Their discussion boards are full of the same BS one sees on Stock Twits and Seeking Alpha.

fw | 10/07/20 02:31PM :

[quote=n.rad]

Did anybody read this?

https://www.google.com/am...y-fool-sits-down-with/

When asked about quality his response was “an X-ray is an X-ray.”

He also talks about the spectral aspect saying it can “look into your brain” as well as breast tissue.

It can also see into your soul
[/quote]

I am trying to understand the scenario of the generic 'doctor looks at x-ray' image.

So you are wearing
- home depot safety glasses
- a surgical mask
- a surgical gown
- basic from the wall-box blue nitrile gloves
- and you have your fingers on a unsterile spine MRI on a lightbox.

The only scenario I can come up with is 'spine surgeon after a case trying to figure out whether he operated on the right level'.

And who prints films for the OR these days ?

n.rad | 10/07/20 02:44PM :

Maybe it’s a metaphor for NNOX.

Thread Enhancer | 10/07/20 03:09PM :

DD nice to see you over at Seeking Alpha. Be prepared for our friend RXR. You at least can impress him by recognizing the detector.

n.rad | 10/07/20 03:23PM :

Does anybody know what the CPT codes and RVUs are going to be for screening whole body tomo?

Thread Enhancer | 10/07/20 03:37PM :

They are not planning on using any. It's $14 a scan. I imagine that can just be OOP right?

RoleCall | 10/07/20 03:49PM :

How is this even possible in a post Theranos world???

n.rad | 10/07/20 03:51PM :

That part of their plan may actually make some sense - bypass the RUC, CMS, insurance companies... If you're providing something nearly clinically useless probably best to keep those guys out of it.

b17b2e | 10/07/20 04:03PM :

Motley fool is a pump and dump operation these days...their own writers do it. Its crazy.

Does anyone know the radiologists on the advisory board?
https://www.nanox.vision/our-leadership. (scroll to bottom)

I don't blame them for lending out their names for $$$, but they are being used to legitimize a scam.

| :

Thread Enhancer | 10/07/20 04:15PM :

I asked earlier if anyone knew them. I am guessing they really have not even looked at what they are endorsing. How could a CT specialist at UW believe what they are proposing?

fw | 10/07/20 04:30PM :

[quote=RoleCall]

How is this even possible in a post Theranos world???
[/quote]

If you watch 'American Greed' on CNBC you ask yourself the same question about almost every investment scam. Short memory and greed are the reasons. One time it's Bernie Madoff scalping jewish retirees, next go around its a greek guy scamming greeks on Long Island. The scam is the same.

What worked for both Theranos and this cat is skepticism against 'the established interests'. In the case of nanox, WE are the buggy-whip manufacturers and boiler stokers who are clinging to their ancient ways.

n.rad | 10/07/20 04:33PM :

Just read that Seeking Alpha thread. I'm obviously not a physicist but I think the answer to his question regarding why they need to go 360 instead of 180 was because the more sources and detectors or angles of information you have for back projection, the closer you get to creating a usable CT image. The max number they could squeeze in and maintain the correct distance was 105 and that required them to go all the way around because of the source size. If they had done half that the image would have been more crap than it was but I guess, yes theoretically you only need 180 degrees of information to make a CT image

Scroll to the bottom of this page to get an idea of the awesomeness we can expect from the arc

http://www.x-ray-optics.d...ons/imaging/tomography

DoctorDalai | 10/07/20 05:01PM :

[quote=fw]

[quote=RoleCall]

How is this even possible in a post Theranos world???
[/quote]

If you watch 'American Greed' on CNBC you ask yourself the same question about almost every investment scam. Short memory and greed are the reasons. One time it's Bernie Madoff scalping jewish retirees, next go around its a greek guy scamming greeks on Long Island. The scam is the same.

What worked for both Theranos and this cat is skepticism against 'the established interests'. In the case of nanox, WE are the buggy-whip manufacturers and boiler stokers who are clinging to their ancient ways.
[/quote]

I think it's more basic than that. We are seeing greed in all its raw glory and splendor. The investors can only see the upside, and don't care about the truth. And, like many Madoff investors, Jewish and otherwise, they KNOW there's a rat, but they want to make their undeserved millions before the scam is revealed. Why do you think the old Nigerian Prince scam was so pervasive? Because there was always one sucker out there that thought HE was the one who would fleece the "Prince". Give people some shell of legitimacy to hang their greedy dreams on, and they will pounce on anyone who tries to tell them they are getting screwed.

Thread Enhancer | 10/07/20 05:06PM :

This just reminded me of someone interviewing Greeks about the corruption in their country and the response was something on the order of "we know it's a fraud but we still think we can make money on the way up if others don't know"

vaporfly | 10/08/20 07:26AM :

[quote=Thread Enhancer]

They are not planning on using any. It's $14 a scan. I imagine that can just be OOP right?

[/quote]

They won't be seeking reimbursement directly (but will bill the provider $14/scan or whatever it is). But for providers to use it, it's in Nanox's interest to figure out with CMS exactly what the code is going to be. However, I'm not sure how much interest a provider will have in paying Nanox $14 for x-ray radiography, plus lab tech and whatever else.

zeuses | 10/08/20 07:39AM :

What is the usual cost including labor and interpretation for a xray?

Thread Enhancer | 10/08/20 07:43AM :

That’s like asking what is the usual cost of going to see an auto mechanic.

Are you still interested in this fraud as an investment Zeuses? Hoping a disruptive price will solve all of the physics problems?

vaporfly | 10/08/20 07:50AM :

[quote=n.rad]

Just read that Seeking Alpha thread. I'm obviously not a physicist but I think the answer to his question regarding why they need to go 360 instead of 180 was because the more sources and detectors or angles of information you have for back projection, the closer you get to creating a usable CT image. The max number they could squeeze in and maintain the correct distance was 105 and that required them to go all the way around because of the source size. If they had done half that the image would have been more crap than it was but I guess, yes theoretically you only need 180 degrees of information to make a CT image

Scroll to the bottom of this page to get an idea of the awesomeness we can expect from the arc

http://www.x-ray-optics.d...ons/imaging/tomography
[/quote]

I'm also no physicist (but I pretend to be one on Internet chatrooms). I'm not sure if it's a true statement, even theoretically, that 360 degrees of information isn't more complete than 180 degrees of information. RXR kept saying how it makes no difference if a beam is going up-down vs down-up. If all the photons are either absorbed or passed through, that would be true. But when you consider scattering, it probably makes a difference if you're hitting tissue before bone vs bone before tissue, so you probably won't get the same image if you're pointing up-down vs down-up. Hence 360 degrees should get you more information.

The real question, however, is whether or not 11-sources set in a 120 degree arc, with a flat detector underneath, would get you the spatial resolution comparable to CT. I have zero expertise here but based on what Nanox has demonstrated so far, it sounds like the answer is "not even close."

zeuses | 10/08/20 07:54AM :

At this point its curiosity. In the yahoo nnox group I'm getting beat up because I post information that I learn here, including links. The Yahoo users accuse me of all sorts of NNOX transgressions. In one of my posts I reminded them that NNOX was a stock not a cult.

RoleCall | 10/08/20 07:55AM :

Direction of the x-ray through tissue does theoretically make a difference due to beam hardening

RoleCall | 10/08/20 07:56AM :

PA vs AP chest radiograph comes to mind

Thread Enhancer | 10/08/20 08:14AM :

[quote=RoleCall]

Direction of the x-ray through tissue does theoretically make a difference due to beam hardening
[/quote]

You should go over to seeking alpha and have a discussion with Richard.

n.rad | 10/08/20 08:35AM :

I’ve been interacting with him just out of curiosity. He seems to have an engineering background. He is also a writer for Seeking Alpha and I’m getting the sense that he’s working on a new bear thesis so I have been feeding him some information.

Thread Enhancer | 10/08/20 08:51AM :

Ah. Interesting. That would make sense.

zeuses | 10/08/20 09:10AM :

" But I have a feeling the box will say 'Siemens', 'Shimadsu' or 'Neusoft' on the outside, not 'Nanox'."

Starting to look like Nikola Trucks scam. NKLA
https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/

'The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so'
Louis Pasteur

Thread Enhancer | 10/08/20 09:45AM :

The analogy would be complete if Nanox actually had something the big vendors don't already have access to. Of course GM was foolish enough to believe NKLA so maybe they will just be duped? History does have a tendency to repeat.

zeuses | 10/08/20 10:01AM :

"Of course GM was foolish enough to believe NKLA so maybe they will just be duped?"
I followed NKLA as another "disruptive" technology, however, after looking under the hood it appeared to be another "fake 'til we make it" scam.
The GM deal is puzzling on a few fronts because they have very experienced investment subsidiary that has EV deals w/ Honda and others. If I remember correctly GM did not invest any $ in NKLA it's a technology deal.

Thread Enhancer | 10/08/20 10:04AM :

I'm not sure about the details of the NKLA deal with GM. I just know what my hedge fund manager friends have to say about the current situation where GM can keep the stock price boosted on something that has zero value just because they are GM.

Thread Enhancer | 10/08/20 10:11AM :

[quote=n.rad]

I’ve been interacting with him just out of curiosity. He seems to have an engineering background. He is also a writer for Seeking Alpha and I’m getting the sense that he’s working on a new bear thesis so I have been feeding him some information.
[/quote]

I wonder if any other participants are watching the discussion. At first they attacked RXR. Now they are just quiet.

n.rad | 10/08/20 10:25AM :

The only bullish type of argument I’ve ever seen to the type of discussion we’re having is “you’re stuck on what legacy technology is capable of”

Which is actually correct as I am stuck on technology obeying the laws of physics.

DoctorDalai | 10/08/20 10:33AM :

[quote=vaporfly]

[quote=n.rad]

Just read that Seeking Alpha thread. I'm obviously not a physicist but I think the answer to his question regarding why they need to go 360 instead of 180 was because the more sources and detectors or angles of information you have for back projection, the closer you get to creating a usable CT image. The max number they could squeeze in and maintain the correct distance was 105 and that required them to go all the way around because of the source size. If they had done half that the image would have been more crap than it was but I guess, yes theoretically you only need 180 degrees of information to make a CT image

Scroll to the bottom of this page to get an idea of the awesomeness we can expect from the arc

http://www.x-ray-optics.d...ons/imaging/tomography
[/quote]

I'm also no physicist (but I pretend to be one on Internet chatrooms). I'm not sure if it's a true statement, even theoretically, that 360 degrees of information isn't more complete than 180 degrees of information. RXR kept saying how it makes no difference if a beam is going up-down vs down-up. If all the photons are either absorbed or passed through, that would be true. But when you consider scattering, it probably makes a difference if you're hitting tissue before bone vs bone before tissue, so you probably won't get the same image if you're pointing up-down vs down-up. Hence 360 degrees should get you more information.

The real question, however, is whether or not 11-sources set in a 120 degree arc, with a flat detector underneath, would get you the spatial resolution comparable to CT. I have zero expertise here but based on what Nanox has demonstrated so far, it sounds like the answer is "not even close."
[/quote]

With Cardiac SPECT, we can make do with a 180 degree arc because the heart, the radiation source, sits anteriorly in the chest. In other SPECT exams, a full 360 degree orbit is needed. The math is similar for CT. I don't see any [i]possible[/i] way a fixed 120 degree arc of sources translating in the Z axis can yield true axial tomography. I think it [i]COULD[/i] produce [i]tomosynthetic[/i] images. So no doubt they'll likely seize on that to claim they can do mammography with tomosynthesis, but I have doubts about that.

fw | 10/08/20 10:46AM :

[quote=zeuses]

" But I have a feeling the box will say 'Siemens', 'Shimadsu' or 'Neusoft' on the outside, not 'Nanox'."

Starting to look like Nikola Trucks scam. NKLA
https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/

[/quote]

I doubt it will be Nanox 'technology' that will show up in a branded box. It'll be something those companies either purchase from an actual manfacturer of tube/receptors or an in-house development.

vaporfly | 10/08/20 11:06AM :

So another thing I've been wondering recently is - what exactly is this single-source machine that Nanox is seeking 510k clearance for? How "commercial-ready" does it have to be, or can it look like a science project?

I mean, presumably it can't just be a single Nanox tube, duct-taped to a stand, with a portable detector placed a few feet away? Presumably you need to have a finished product so they can do 60601 testing. Theoretically Nanox could use their source (assuming it can generate enough current and has a useful life of more than a few days/months) and create a single-source mobile X-ray unit that's actually marketable, but we've seen no pictures of their single-source device.

vaporfly | 10/08/20 11:13AM :

[quote=fw]

[quote=zeuses]

" But I have a feeling the box will say 'Siemens', 'Shimadsu' or 'Neusoft' on the outside, not 'Nanox'."

Starting to look like Nikola Trucks scam. NKLA
https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/

[/quote]

I doubt it will be Nanox 'technology' that will show up in a branded box. It'll be something those companies either purchase from an actual manfacturer of tube/receptors or an in-house development.
[/quote]

If Nanox really had a functional cold cathode tube that can achieve similar specs (kV, mA, life span, reliability, etc) as hot filament tubes, they can just sell that tube to OEMs (like Micro-X is doing), without all the trouble of trying to develop entirely new machines, let alone trying to sell the stock market on some SaaS model. Instead, they had one agreement with Fuji, who apparently passed on the opportunity to use their source for mammography.

n.rad | 10/08/20 11:13AM :

The impression I get from the CEO statements and interviews is the arc will do it all. It will be the single source when needed as well as the 3-D imager/mammo/angio/fluoro unit when needed. They promote the multispectral aspect as being able to quickly change from one modality to another.

This seems to bring up a whole new set of issues like the existence of detectors which could be this flexible. Also, trying to position patients in the arc for various types of CR imaging would be difficult if not impossible.

n.rad | 10/08/20 11:33AM :

It’s like the whole plan was developed between the business/sales people and the engineers with a complete lack of clinical perspective.

DoctorDalai | 10/08/20 11:35AM :

The CEO doesn't know an X-ray from Ray Charles. I'm surprised he isn't claiming the damn thing can measure your IQ and predict the exact date and time of your death.

fw | 10/08/20 01:08PM :

[quote=vaporfly]
If Nanox really had a functional cold cathode tube that can achieve similar specs (kV, mA, life span, reliability, etc) as hot filament tubes, they can just sell that tube to OEMs (like Micro-X is doing), without all the trouble of trying to develop entirely new machines, let alone trying to sell the stock market on some SaaS model. Instead, they had one agreement with Fuji, who apparently passed on the opportunity to use their source for mammography.
[/quote]

I would have to ask a physicist or engineer, but I always thought the heat generation is mostly on the anode side, that's why the whole heat-conduction and cooling mechanism is on that end of the tube. The heated cathode is a few watts. So if they are going x-ray more than a cadaveric hand, they are eventually going to build up HUs in their little step-anodes.

But that is if their device is constrained by the laws of physics, which doesn't seem to be a given.

zeuses | 10/08/20 07:04PM :

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020158644A1/en?assignee=nanox&oq=nanox&sort=new

Thanks for posting the link but it is quite technical.

zeuses | 10/08/20 07:22PM :

This is getting way off topic -
"I'm not sure about the details of the NKLA deal with GM. I just know what my hedge fund manager friends have to say about the current situation where GM can keep the stock price boosted on something that has zero value just because they are GM."

A friend owns a trucking company he tells me electric technology alone will not work for long haul trips because of the space/weight requirements of the batteries. It will work for short haul. The holy grail of EV long haul trucks is H2/electric. Last time I checked Hyliion Holdings Corp (HYLN) is going to build hydrogen/electric powertrains that can be used by most big rig mfgrs.

vaporfly | 10/09/20 05:59AM :

[quote=zeuses]

This is getting way off topic -
"I'm not sure about the details of the NKLA deal with GM. I just know what my hedge fund manager friends have to say about the current situation where GM can keep the stock price boosted on something that has zero value just because they are GM."

A friend owns a trucking company he tells me electric technology alone will not work for long haul trips because of the space/weight requirements of the batteries. It will work for short haul. The holy grail of EV long haul trucks is H2/electric. Last time I checked Hyliion Holdings Corp (HYLN) is going to build hydrogen/electric powertrains that can be used by most big rig mfgrs.
[/quote]

1. This is way off topic
2. Your friend is a truck driver, not an engineer studying the latest designs to improve energy density of batteries. Neither are we.
3. At least Nikola figured out how to stencil "H2" on the side of its pusher.
4. There is a big difference between someone that wants to built a new powertrain, vs someone that can and will build a new powertrain.
5. As someone else here reminded you already, make sure your fancy new powertrain has the correct flux capacitor installed.

vaporfly | 10/09/20 06:11AM :

[quote=fw]

[quote=vaporfly]
If Nanox really had a functional cold cathode tube that can achieve similar specs (kV, mA, life span, reliability, etc) as hot filament tubes, they can just sell that tube to OEMs (like Micro-X is doing), without all the trouble of trying to develop entirely new machines, let alone trying to sell the stock market on some SaaS model. Instead, they had one agreement with Fuji, who apparently passed on the opportunity to use their source for mammography.
[/quote]

I would have to ask a physicist or engineer, but I always thought the heat generation is mostly on the anode side, that's why the whole heat-conduction and cooling mechanism is on that end of the tube. The heated cathode is a few watts. So if they are going x-ray more than a cadaveric hand, they are eventually going to build up HUs in their little step-anodes.

But that is if their device is constrained by the laws of physics, which doesn't seem to be a given.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure the tungsten cathodes typically need to be heated to a very high temperature to emit enough electrons with the required energy levels. So Nanox was correct about this - if you can create a functional x-ray tube around a cold cathode, it is like going from an incandescent bulb to an LED bulb.

Also, I was told that a cold cathode tube could allow you to control the focal spot electronically and in real-time, to improve your spatial resolution. Lastly, because cold cathodes won't fail catastrophically/unpredictably, theoretically you can design a machine that will let you know ahead of time when a tube needs to be replaced. Those are all good things in theory, but the question is whether or not they will get there.

RoleCall | 10/09/20 06:39AM :

It's not enough to make x-rays, you need them to have high enough energy to penetrate a high bmi patient.

DoctorDalai | 10/09/20 06:49AM :

And it would be nice to have some form of detector to detect said X-rays.

n.rad | 10/09/20 07:00AM :

My current understanding is:

1. The claims regarding the source may be theoretically possible but it’s hard to trust anything from this company as so much has been faked to date.
2. 11 sources with a fan beam or cone beam of 30 degrees could theoretically produced a CT-like image which is apparently described in Buzug's 2008 book Page 338, which discusses the so-called volume CT and shows GE's prototype (I have also seen other papers on IEEE that describe this possibility) but this would also require huge leaps in detector technology and presumably require a large array of detectors. This technology is or has been worked on by other leading vendors and it appears unlikely that NNOX will be the one that brings it to market
3. There is currently no built-in detector. They are currently using a single $70,000 Konica Minolta Aero DR detector. As others have said, crude tomosynthesis may be possible with this single detector design (but nothing close to CT).
4. A major point is the fact that they are advertising this device will cost $10,000 when they are using a $70,000 detector.
5. Another major point is that without built-in detectors the video posted showing a real time image acquisition was likely faked.

vaporfly | 10/09/20 07:07AM :

I agree with pretty much all your bullet points here. I think Nanox is a total fraud. I do think the idea of a cold cathode is worth exploring, however. If Micro-X or whoever else can get more current out of its (CNT-based) tube and guarantee an acceptable useful life, it has potential as a tube-replacement.

Has anyone here ever seen the CareStream mobile x-ray that uses Micro-X's cold cathode? I hear they've been selling well during the pandemic but have not met anyone that's used it.

zeuses | 10/09/20 07:20AM :

RollCall "My current understanding is:"
Thanks for the easy to understand explanation of NANOX "technology" such as it is.

DoctorDalai | 10/09/20 07:36AM :

There is absolutely no indication that I have found to suggest that the lil' $100 cold-cathode tubes can produce fan-beams or cone-beams. It is stated at some point in the propaganda that the tubes are "fixed".

You've got a company run by an entrepreneur whose previous success was with a company building cell-phone chargers making claims about technology that cannot exist. Sounds like a winner to me. At least Elizabeth Holmes had some sort of pedigree upon which to build her lies.

vaporfly | 10/09/20 07:55AM :

Sorry if I wasn't clear before. I am not defending Nanox. I hope their CEO goes to jail one day for this fraud.

I was speaking more about cold cathodes in general, and specifically, I'm wondering about the CareStream unit, which uses a CNT-based tube and is already on the market. This has nothing to do with Nanox's claims ($100 tube, $10k machine, CT quality, etc).

| :

fw | 10/09/20 08:46AM :

[quote=vaporfly]
I'm pretty sure the tungsten cathodes typically need to be heated to a very high temperature to emit enough electrons with the required energy levels. So Nanox was correct about this - if you can create a functional x-ray tube around a cold cathode, it is like going from an incandescent bulb to an LED bulb.
[/quote]

Its not. A substantial portion of the heat in a x-ray tube is generated on the anode side due to the energetically inefficient process that converts electron bombardment into x-rays via the 'bremsstrahlung' mechanism. The heated filament is a minor energy input into the entire tube assembly. The only thing you are 'saving' on the energy equation by going to a cold cathode is a few watts, you are still dealing with kilowatts worth of energy output on the anode side. All the mumbo-jumbo about electronically focussing is not going to change the fact that you have to reject X kiljoules in energy in your device, except that you are doing so from 20/30/50 little tubes with static anodes rather than one big one with a rotating anode, oil bath and a cooler.

fw | 10/09/20 08:49AM :

Again, miniaturized solid-state tubes offer lots of potential as they eliminate certain design constraints in a scanner. But they dont suspend the laws of physics.

n.rad | 10/09/20 08:56AM :

That all makes sense but how about this argument? “NNOX to da moon!!!”

DoctorDalai | 10/09/20 09:03AM :

[quote=n.rad]

That all makes sense but how about this argument? “NNOX to da moon!!!”
[/quote]

SHHHHHH! That's what they are going to reveal at RSNA! Don't tell anyone!

vaporfly | 10/09/20 09:04AM :

[quote=fw]

[quote=vaporfly]
I'm pretty sure the tungsten cathodes typically need to be heated to a very high temperature to emit enough electrons with the required energy levels. So Nanox was correct about this - if you can create a functional x-ray tube around a cold cathode, it is like going from an incandescent bulb to an LED bulb.
[/quote]

Its not. A substantial portion of the heat in a x-ray tube is generated on the anode side due to the energetically inefficient process that converts electron bombardment into x-rays via the 'bremsstrahlung' mechanism. The heated filament is a minor energy input into the entire tube assembly. The only thing you are 'saving' on the energy equation by going to a cold cathode is a few watts, you are still dealing with kilowatts worth of energy output on the anode side. All the mumbo-jumbo about electronically focussing is not going to change the fact that you have to reject X kiljoules in energy in your device, except that you are doing so from 20/30/50 little tubes with static anodes rather than one big one with a rotating anode, oil bath and a cooler.
[/quote]

fw, this is way beyond my pay grade! I had assumed that, since the ultimate source of the energy is coming from the cathode, a colder cathode would automatically mean less heat on the anode. But I see your point, that bremsstrahlung itself is inefficient, so however you generate your electrons, you still have to deal with the heat on the anode. Reminds me that even in the LED bulb comparison, while the light source itself is very energy efficient, in order to turn blue LED into white light, you need a bulb casing with phosphorus coating that will still generate some heat.

Thanks for the education! If you have time, I would love to get your thoughts on the CareStream machine that I keep asking about. It sounds like they were able to save a lot of weight with their cathode/tube.

fw | 10/09/20 09:24AM :

[quote=vaporfly]
Thanks for the education! If you have time, I would love to get your thoughts on the CareStream machine that I keep asking about. It sounds like they were able to save a lot of weight with their cathode/tube.
[/quote]

I have no experience with that machine. Looks promising.

n.rad | 10/09/20 02:31PM :

NNOX to present at RSNA on Wednesday, December 2nd at 5pm followed by Q&A

DoctorDalai | 10/09/20 06:25PM :

As part of the meeting? From McCormick? They'll be the only ones there. As a zoom from Israel with the opportunity to introduce whatever fake video they wish?

jeremy_rutman_IP | 10/10/20 01:44AM :

I'm a PhD physicst and patent attorney living in Israel and thus in a particularly good position to attempt to understand whether Nanox is for real or not.
I've done a detailed analysis of the Nanox patents here.
I've also collected some bits of info beyond the patents and put them there.
One question I ran up against that forum members might be able to help me with is:
Small cheap sources like this exist for dental work - why are these not suitable for a CT and/or body scanner?
(The cheap tube is ~600W while a CT tube can be e.g. 9KW - so I'm assuming you'd use 90/6 cheap tubes to reach the same average power as the rather expensive ($50,000 ?) CT tube. )
If not , why not (e.g. all the power has to come from the same direction) and would the same problems also obtain with a cold cathode distributed source such as the one Nanox claims to have developed?

jeremy_rutman_IP | 10/10/20 02:34AM :

[quote=DoctorDalai]

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020158644A1/en?assignee=nanox&oq=nanox&sort=new

Thoughts?
[/quote]

I've done a detailed analysis of the nanox patents here.

jeremy_rutman_IP | 10/10/20 04:34AM :

[quote=fw]

[quote=n.rad]
The x-ray source may be less of a novel design than I had thought. This article is from 2010 discussing more than one company with similar technology( https://www.technologyrev...ortable-x-ray-machine/ ) A brief search I found some other companies advertising XR generation without the moving components.
[/quote]

What are the odds, they even have the same electron microscopy image of the emitter ?

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/working-flat-out/

This is getting curiouser and curiouser.
[/quote]

That's actually an Adaptix source - the Nanox is somewhat different but both are examples of Spindt arrays.

fw | 10/10/20 04:54AM :

[quote=jeremy_rutman_IP]

[quote=DoctorDalai]

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020158644A1/en?assignee=nanox&oq=nanox&sort=new

Thoughts?
[/quote]

I've done a detailed analysis of the nanox patents here.
[/quote]

Thanks for putting that together and sharing it here. Interesting that the problems with their approach are obvious to a practicioner in the patent business.

Where I disagree with your analysis is the focus on the durability aspect. I dont recall them making any particular claims on that. If your x-ray source is a $10 throwaway chip that comes in a box from fox-conn, you dont have to concern yourself with durability much. Every x scans, you just pull the 20 tubes and toss them, kind of like a mediocre android phone.

Given the flimsiness of their patent portfolio and outsized claims for their device, I would like to be able to take the covers off their 'Arc' to see what it says on the housing for each of their wondertubes ;-)

jeremy_rutman_IP | 10/10/20 05:19AM :

[quote=fw]
Thanks for putting that together and sharing it here. Interesting that the problems with their approach are obvious to a practicioner in the patent business.

Where I disagree with your analysis is the focus on the durability aspect. I dont recall them making any particular claims on that. If your x-ray source is a $10 throwaway chip that comes in a box from fox-conn, you dont have to concern yourself with durability much. Every x scans, you just pull the 20 tubes and toss them, kind of like a mediocre android phone.

Given the flimsiness of their patent portfolio and outsized claims for their device, I would like to be able to take the covers off their 'Arc' to see what it says on the housing for each of their wondertubes ;-)
[/quote]

My assumption that they are banking on durability came from this:
Said Hitoshi Masuya, CEO of Nanox Japan, “while some companies have made achievements using carbon nano tubes as a basis for field emission X-ray with similar approach to the one used by Nanox, to the best of our knowledge no company have achieved a commercially stable source that can be embedded inside a medical imaging system and operate with an acceptable lifespan. We are proud at our achievement and look forward to beginning to revolutionizing medical imaging in the world.”

Other claims I have heard are: low cost (the main claim to fame) and multispectral capability. Something I dug up on my own is improved monochromaticity, apparently due to less Brehmsstrahlung (sp?). Without knowing whether these sources are trying to compete with CT (which are multi-KW devices going for $100K or more if I have it right) or are more dental X-ray scale (500W for $100), its tough to weigh in definitively. The unit price of $10,000 does pretty clearly seem to be imaginary given a detector will apparently be north of $50,000 alone.

fw | 10/10/20 06:21AM :

You are asking the right questions.
- we already do 'multispectral' x-ray and CT
- we already do tomosynthesis every day
- we already have a cold cathode x-ray source in the marketplace

All these technologies have limitations imposed by the underlying physics and by the regulatory environment. This companys claim is that their proprietary combination of AI, cloud computing and unicorn farts will somehow levitate their system above all those constraints.

I am skeptical.

jeremy_rutman_IP | 10/11/20 01:08PM :

[quote=fw]
You are asking the right questions.
- we already do 'multispectral' x-ray and CT
- we already do tomosynthesis every day
- we already have a cold cathode x-ray source in the marketplace
I am skeptical.
[/quote]
I updated my analysis with stuff I've learned here and from further poking about.
It seems nanox is comparing a $100, 100W tube suitable for (e.g.) dental x-ray to a ~10KW, $150K tube suitable for CT.
I am left with a few concrete questions - namely, does a high end $150K tube allow for continuous use? I saw reference to a 'hold your breath' 20second spiral scan where something like 100 exposures are done. Does that sound about right? At 10kW over 20s thats 200KJ of energy deposited on the anode with (apparently) something like 99% of that going to heat.
A tungsten anode of e.g. 100g and heat capacity 0.14 J/gC at room temp would(if uncooled) heat up by
dT=Q/mc = 200KJ/(.14*100) -> melted all to hell.
The anode might last up to about 50kJ or 5 seconds before melting .
For a tube of the same power but using a field emitter array, the notion that the individual field emitter array electron beams hit the anode at slightly different points makes no difference to this situation (except 1. that you would avoid having to rotate the electrode, if the local heating is faster than the heat conduction ability of the material and 2. the x-ray source may well now be originating from a larger area, making for a worse image; the nanox source appears to be about 2cm x 2cm , while a CT spotsize of 1mm for a 10KW beam is apparently reasonable).
The only way out that I can imagine is if the nanox device was producing x-rays more efficiently - and if it uses electrons accelerated into an anode, its using the same braking radiation mechanism as the conventional tube, and therefore has the same low efficiency as a conventional tube.

Does all this sound reasonable?

fw | 10/11/20 01:46PM :

[quote=jeremy_rutman_IP]
I am left with a few concrete questions - namely, does a high end $150K tube allow for continuous use? I saw reference to a 'hold your breath' 20second spiral scan where something like 100 exposures are done. Does that sound about right? At 10kW over 20s thats 200KJ of energy deposited on the anode with (apparently) something like 99% of that going to heat.[/quote]

Yes, that's one of the main features of those CT tubes, they are able to absorb the heat that is created in either long continuous scans (e.g. a vascular study where one scans from the heart down to the toes) or in multi-phase studies where the same area (e.g. the liver) gets scanned 2 or 3 times in a row. A portable x-ray system like the carestream unit takes one or two exposures that take a few miliseconds each. The amount of energy deposited in the anode on a dental x-ray or portable x-ray unit is not very large.

[quote]
A tungsten anode of e.g. 100g and heat capacity 0.14 J/gC at room temp would(if uncooled) heat up by
dT=Q/mc = 200KJ/(.14*100) -> melted all to hell.
The anode might last up to about 50kJ or 5 seconds before melting .
For a tube of the same power but using a field emitter array, the notion that the individual field emitter array electron beams hit the anode at slightly different points makes no difference to this situation (except 1. that you would avoid having to rotate the electrode, if the local heating is faster than the heat conduction ability of the material and 2. the x-ray source may well now be originating from a larger area, making for a worse image; the nanox source appears to be about 2cm x 2cm , while a CT spotsize of 1mm for a 10KW beam is apparently reasonable). [/quote]

The way the rotating anode tubes 'survive' the heat is that they spin the anode and rather than the energy being deposited into a 1mm spot, it is spread around 'stripe' around the perimeter of the disc. The dynamics are such that just enough heat can be conducted away from the disc for it to not turn to metal vapor.

[quote]
The only way out that I can imagine is if the nanox device was producing x-rays more efficiently - and if it uses electrons accelerated into an anode, its using the same braking radiation mechanism as the conventional tube, and therefore has the same low efficiency as a conventional tube.

Does all this sound reasonable?
[/quote]

Yes.

zeuses | 10/12/20 01:33PM :

IMO. the company is a fraud using Fake It Until You Make It technique
This link is supposed to describe how NANOX technology works.
https://www.rutmanip.com/post/nanox_imaging

Thread Enhancer | 10/12/20 01:45PM :

Zeuses. That link is authored by our new colleague here who already shared it with us. It’s hardly supposed to describe how the technology works. It shows why it must be a fraud. Am I missing something in your post?

zeuses | 10/12/20 02:00PM :

"It’s hardly supposed to describe how the technology works. It shows why it must be a fraud. Am I missing something in your post?.
Thread Enhancer, The guys on the Yahoo NANOX group posted that link validating the technology works. No Kidding.
If you've got some time on your hands might be interesting to checkout the forum. Very few of the people in that forum reply to negative information. Every investment I buy I research than research again.
Thanks for all of you helpful information.
https://finance.yahoo.com.../NNOX/community?p=NNOX

Thread Enhancer | 10/12/20 02:11PM :

Ah, I see what you are saying. Yes, it is amazing how people use things they don’t understand as support for their conclusions.

Thanks. I’ll check it out.

zeuses | 10/12/20 03:22PM :

Thread Catcher I don't post there as zeuses.

Thread Enhancer | 10/12/20 04:46PM :

I saw. Nice to meet you abdul. That place is crazy. Similar to StockTwits.

Don't be distressed that nobody believes you. There are a lot of wishful thinking in stock market related discussion. Plus some benefit from the pump and dump. You are making them quite angry talking about the truth.

zeuses | 10/12/20 05:10PM :

OK Sherlock, you exposed me. . .
I view the "Yahoo news groups as A Broken Clock is Right Twice A Day"
When I research a new investment I check the Yahoo groups. Infrequently, employees post there revealing information that is not otherwise available. It fascinates that a lot of those posters have no interest in any negativer information about NANOX. That's no way to invest.
IMO, everything about NANOX is vapor. It'll be interesting to see what they present at RSNA.
Nice to meet you Thread Enhancer and thanks for the useful information

richard.x.roe | 10/12/20 08:04PM :

[align=left]Dear Nanox fans:[/align] Thank for you suggesting this forum to me. As you may have heard already, I ask a lot of dumb questions. Here is one: You have been thinking of replacing your aging AMX 4+ with something more modern. You are offered an experimental piece of equipment for free (with the promise of imminent FDA approval within a week). All you know about it is that the HVL is 1.17 mm (Al) at 56 kV. Would you consider accepting it?

richard.x.roe | 10/12/20 08:19PM :

Can you give some reference or proof that shows that the direction of the x-ray through tissue does make a PRACTICAL difference (given all the other noise)? I don't think PA vs AP chest radiograph is relevant here - almost all of the rays in the two projections travel different paths through the chest.

RoleCall | 10/13/20 02:48AM :

The path isn't that different

Thread Enhancer | 10/13/20 06:56AM :

RXR. You are correct. It’s a dumb question. Most of us if involved in equipment decisions are going to be looking at images. Tube data will have nothing to do with it. Better find the radiology physicist board. We were too busy learning the imaging characteristics and pathophysiology of disease.

vaporfly | 10/13/20 07:05AM :

My sincerest recommendation is to stop visiting Yahoo, stocktwits, seeking alpha & motley fool comment sections, etc. Most people are there to push an agenda, and plus it really makes no difference if you can convince a random stranger on the Internet that they're wrong.

I am thankful that forums like this still exist, where people can talk about ideas and science without being swamped by stock pushing trolls.

Thread Enhancer | 10/13/20 07:14AM :

That’s good advice VF. I’ve searched around hoping one could find a place similar to this where investing experts would discuss the merits of companies. You are correct. Every name you listed above has no interest in that. It’s easy to get sucked in trying to make a valid point and then feel like one must respond to the attacks. Typical troll behavior.

richard.x.roe | 10/13/20 07:25AM :

I believe the path isn't that different only if the X-ray source is very far or all the beams are "parallel" rays. For a point source (or close to a point source), most of the paths are different. See how this particular ray below cannot be replicated - the "point source" in the other direction simply does not exist.

richard.x.roe | 10/13/20 07:30AM :

Say the images look good (they are digitally processed, of course) and the exposure was at the high end, but still ok (0.3 mGy). So you would not have a problem with this free equipment?

b17b2e | 10/13/20 08:12AM :

you aren't asking the right questions. The problem is much bigger than what you are considering. [quote=richard.x.roe]

Say the images look good (they are digitally processed, of course) and the exposure was at the high end, but still ok (0.3 mGy). So you would not have a problem with this free equipment?
[/quote]

Thread Enhancer | 10/13/20 09:03AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

I believe the path isn't that different only if the X-ray source is very far or all the beams are "parallel" rays. For a point source (or close to a point source), most of the paths are different. See how this particular ray below cannot be replicated - the "point source" in the other direction simply does not exist.

[/quote]

This diagram shows why some on here have said what the Nanox Arc might be able to do is tomosynthesis. Computed tomography is out of the question with their architecture.

richard.x.roe | 10/13/20 09:36AM :

What are the questions that I should ask?

I am asking the question about the free AMX 4+ replacement because initially I had reasons to believe that they completely faked their single-source test results for their FDA submission by just using an old AMX 4+. But now I am thinking that they just bought a cheap Chinese source.

richard.x.roe | 10/13/20 09:56AM :

But I have seen no proof that the quality of the resulting voxel reconstruction (and ability to view any slices) won't approach the state-of-the-art CT images. Buzug 2008 ( https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642072574 ) seems to agree with me - the math is more complicated, but it seems using 11 fast-switching wide-cone-beam sources positioned in say 150 degree ARC with a large set of high-resolution fast flat detectors underneath could do it. Say, in 10 years.

[quote=Thread Enhancer]
This diagram shows why some on here have said what the Nanox Arc might be able to do is tomosynthesis. Computed tomography is out of the question with their architecture.
[/quote]

Thread Enhancer | 10/13/20 10:04AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

But I have seen no proof that the quality of the resulting voxel reconstruction (and ability to view any slices) won't approach the state-of-the-art CT images. Buzug 2008 ( https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642072574 ) seems to agree with me - the math is more complicated, but it seems using 11 fast-switching wide-cone-beam sources positioned in say 150 degree ARC with a large set of high-resolution fast flat detectors underneath could do it. Say, in 10 years.

[quote=Thread Enhancer]
This diagram shows why some on here have said what the Nanox Arc might be able to do is tomosynthesis. Computed tomography is out of the question with their architecture.
[/quote]
[/quote]

OK fine. You are correct. This is just the wrong place to discuss high level x-ray physics. Most here don't have enough knowledge or experience. What we do have is a lot of experience in reading images and knowing what is good quality from a visual perspective. I am unsure what you are hoping to get of us? It sounds as if you are trying to prove a certain level of fraud based on technical data. We are unlikely to be able to help.

richard.x.roe | 10/13/20 10:14AM :

Fine, forget high-level physics or math, but I do not accept that radiologists only care about the good quality of pictures from a visual perspective. What about ALARA?

Thread Enhancer | 10/13/20 10:42AM :

Of course ALARA matters. I never said image quality is all we care about. It just happens to be where we will be most helpful in the decision making process for new equipment. That was the question you posed. I see where you are going but you are being too obtuse to get much out of us. You can stop with the line of questioning that feels like a test of our competency to start.

RoleCall | 10/13/20 10:49AM :

Your line of questions misses the mark of relevancy, we're just not interested in teaching high level physics to a stranger online

fw | 10/13/20 10:58AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

But I have seen no proof that the quality of the resulting voxel reconstruction (and ability to view any slices) won't approach the state-of-the-art CT images. Buzug 2008 ( https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642072574 ) seems to agree with me - the math is more complicated, but it seems using 11 fast-switching wide-cone-beam sources positioned in say 150 degree ARC with a large set of high-resolution fast flat detectors underneath could do it. Say, in 10 years.
[/quote]

Yes, one of these days, we may see (another) CT scanner that doesn't physically rotate a source and detector. Yet I dont see any of the elements required to make this happen in the pictures of the Nanox science project.

| :

richard.x.roe | 10/13/20 11:21AM :

My main concern is that radiologists will be ok with getting some free equipment and may not start complaining until much later. I have seen how complete frauds have corrupted the FCC by successfully prodding them to approve unsafe and illegal interfering equipment in violation of FCC's own regulations (luckily, the equipment never sold much). My concern is that the FDA can be corrupted just as easily (and it would ignore its own regulations).

So, let me ask plainly: Is HVL of 1.17 mm (Al) at 56 kV acceptable quality for a new X-ray source to radiologists here, assuming usable images? If so, for what specific purpose? Because I don't believe FDA regulations allow it.

[quote=Thread Enhancer]

Of course ALARA matters. I never said image quality is all we care about. It just happens to be where we will be most helpful in the decision making process for new equipment. That was the question you posed. I see where you are going but you are being too obtuse to get much out of us. You can stop with the line of questioning that feels like a test of our competency to start.
[/quote]

richard.x.roe | 10/13/20 11:34AM :

I don't think I have seen this discussed yet (https://theicecommunity.com/varex-showcases-new-x-ray-components-at-ecr-2020/ ). Varex is not a fraud, of course, but I wonder what their angle is. I am sure Nanox will use Varex' prototype to legitimize its own prototype (or it could even "partner" with them). If anyone has any specs or has seen a demo, please let me know.

A new curved array nanotube (NT) prototype will be showcased to open discussions with customers about developing new products and applications. This NT2518C is a 25-emitter tube prototype designed specifically for use in Static Breast Tomosynthesis Systems, which contains technology that could potentially also be used for other industrial and medical applications. These technologies have not been approved or cleared for any diagnostic or pre-clinical use at this time.

[i]VEC joint venture new product prototype[/i]

Nanotube based X-ray tubes replace traditional coiled filament in a conventional X-ray tube with a multibeam field emission cold cathode nanotube emitter. This technology could enable X-ray tubes to be manufactured using arrays of small emitters well suited for portable tomosynthesis systems, Mobile C-Arm surgical systems, and portable computed tomography (CT) systems, among other medical imaging applications. Varex, through its joint venture, VEC Imaging GmbH & Co. Kg, based in Erlangen Germany, is developing this nanotube technology.

vaporfly | 10/13/20 12:53PM :

RXR - I know some guys at Varex, and they also think Nanox is a joke (although they would never comment on it publicly). "Science project" was how they described it. But if you've been following the space, you should know that Varex, Micro-X, the Xinray guys before them, and probably all 3 tier 1 OEMs, have been working on CNT-based cold cathodes for years. I was not aware that Varex's new tube is ready for prime time, but they will have to answer the same questions re: longevity, voltage/power, etc. Luckily, Varex knows what they're doing, so I am sure they won't be seeking marketing clearance until they're 110% sure of their specs.

As for your other posts on tomosynthesis. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I studied biochemistry (and a good amount of physics) in college, and I remember the whole section on X-ray diffraction seemed like pure voodoo. So in theory, I suppose you may even mathematically prove that you can potentially achieve scanning electron microscope-level image resolution with two X-ray sources placed at 90 degrees (i.e. the information is out there), but in practice, no one here has seen amazing images out of a static tomo that even come close to a CT, so I'm not really sure what exactly you're trying to achieve here.

Finally, interesting tidbit re: your hypothesis that Nanox submitted fake data to the FDA. What's your reasoning behind it? For what it's worth, I heard that Nanox initially didn't think they needed to submit any data, which was why they received that initial deficiency letter. To receive FDA clearance, you need to have the FDA physically examine/test your device, or you need to have an independent expert examine it at your facility. I'm not sure how Nanox is going to pull that one off.

richard.x.roe | 10/13/20 03:25PM :

If you can get some specs from the Varex guys about the new source and which customers have shown interest, it would be great. I know that there has been interest in CNT for X-ray sources since 2001, but I don't see the advantages vs hot cathode (is switching really faster?)

About the tomosynthesis - I know you have not seen the images, but it does not mean that Nanox, flush with cash, can't make it using state-of-the-art sources, detectors, and ASICs bought from others, and still sell it at $10,000 (even though it would cost $1,000,000 each to make). At least GE was working on something close (but still using a rotating source), according to Buzug's citation (I could not find the actual GE paper). And Buzug shows that the math could work to get to CT quality (although I have not verified it numerically at this point with the specific example of Nanox source configuration, the latest fast flat detectors, etc). Of course, I would welcome a proof that it simply can't be done. On the other hand, it is impossible to do it with just 2 X-ray sources (see https://mathworld.wolfram.com/HammersX-RayProblems.html )

The reason why I think that Nanox may have faked the latest FDA submission is that Nanox is faking things. Specifically, the supposed "raw data" video that was removed after Muddy Waters commented on it. Moreover, the pictures of its sources show 3 wire leads (and generally look like other cheap Chinese sources) , while the CGI/CAD pictures show more leads and a chip inside. Nanox also claims that Roentgen used hot cathode, that mAs means mA per second, that power is measured in volts, that the heat problem occurs due to the cathode rather than the anode, etc.

So, what do you think about the 56kVp, 1.17mm Al HVL source? Can it be approved? Results were obtained with Piranha placed where the detector would be.

richard.x.roe | 10/13/20 03:52PM :

Does anyone know the equipment model and software used to produce this movie?

https://www.istockphoto.com/video/angiography-testing-of-heart-vessels-monitor-with-medical-information-gm976947558-265640151

Nanox used it on its 2019 website, but then removed the link to it from the front page.

Thread Enhancer | 10/13/20 05:32PM :

They like Getty images. There are probably some on here that would recognize the make and model. Regardless that is high resolution cine imaging that needs a high energy source and a high quality image intensifier. Does Nanox suggest they can do angiography with the Arc?

richard.x.roe | 10/13/20 06:42PM :

As of July 2019 (since removed) they were saying on their webpage just above that video:
Nanox multi-spectral separation level allows for the elimination of iodine agents injections for cardiovascular contrast purposes, on site identification of aneurysms and multiple significant early detection enhancements vs. legacy systems.[/h2] https://web.archive.org/w...ps://www.nanox.vision/

But the prospectus says:

We believe our X-ray source technology can produce multi-spectral imaging from one X-ray source, which allows for variable energy levels to be controlled during one scan. With multi-spectral imaging, one source chip can be used for multiple types of scans, such as head-scans, abdomen, mammography and angiograms, involving both soft and hard tissues at variable densities, simultaneously. We believe this multi-spectral imaging could also be applied to real-time video imaging. The image below is a general illustration of the functionality and capability of multi-spectral imaging. (page 83)

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1795251/000114036120017084/nt10006151x8_f1.htm

[quote=Thread Enhancer]
Does Nanox suggest they can do angiography with the Arc?
[/quote]

Thread Enhancer | 10/13/20 07:17PM :

Elimination of contrast! Winning!

fw | 10/14/20 05:43AM :

[quote=Thread Enhancer]

Elimination of contrast! Winning!
[/quote]

You didn't know that all it takes is the ability to vary the energy of your x-rays and you can do non contrast angio ?

Oh, and it only costs $10,000 and you can do a scan a day on everyone in the world !! And their dog too !!

jeremy_rutman_IP | 10/15/20 02:17AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]
And Buzug shows that the math could work to get to CT quality (although I have not verified it numerically at this point with the specific example of Nanox source configuration, the latest fast flat detectors, etc). Of course, I would welcome a proof that it simply can't be done. On the other hand, it is impossible to do it with just 2 X-ray sources (see https://mathworld.wolfram.com/HammersX-RayProblems.html )
[/quote]
I blv. there's got to be a tradeoff e.g. less depth-of-field for fewer detectors in a tomosynthesis setup.
[quote=richard.x.roe]
Nanox also claims that Roentgen used hot cathode, that mAs means mA per second, that power is measured in volts, that the heat problem occurs due to the cathode rather than the anode, etc.
[/quote]
Can you point me to those , for my collection ...

Rubas | 10/15/20 09:18AM :

They updated their technology page on their website:
https://www.nanox.vision/our-technology

richard.x.roe | 10/15/20 09:27AM :

Is anyone here familiar with Fuji FDX station? What do you think of this image - was it taken using a regular low-power source? S-value of 17063? Do you know what the image label says? What is the purpose of this testing strip on the left?

Thread Enhancer | 10/15/20 10:32AM :

[quote=Rubas]

They updated their technology page on their website:
https://www.nanox.vision/our-technology
[/quote]
The images are terrible.

Where is the detector in the Arc?

delawarerad | 10/15/20 10:35AM :

If this is what you put on your own website to display your best work....my god, this company is done...

Attached Image(s)

richard.x.roe | 10/15/20 11:01AM :

Which images, specifically, are terrible and why? I would say that the current Arc (version 1.5) does not have a detector - you put an Aero DR or a Fuji CR under the patient - it is a single-source x-ray machine (but you can select which one of the 11 sources you would use), build for initial FDA approval. The high-quality tomosynthesis/CT functionality will be added later in 2021 (and subject to separate approval).
[quote=Thread Enhancer]
The images are terrible.
Where is the detector in the Arc?
[/quote]

fw | 10/15/20 11:05AM :

It appears to me that Nanox has discovered our little forum.

I watched a brief documentary on Theranos the other day. I guess we can all look forward to receiving angry lawyer letters in the weeks to come.

richard.x.roe | 10/15/20 11:06AM :

Why do you think this is not a good work, specifically? Remember, the company only makes the source in the current device, not the CR cassette or reader! It is not fair to blame Nanox for the crappy Fuji CR quality.

[quote=delawarerad]
If this is what you put on your own website to display your best work....my god, this company is done...
[/quote]

fw | 10/15/20 11:08AM :

[quote=Rubas]

They updated their technology page on their website:
https://www.nanox.vision/our-technology
[/quote]

Obviously written by someone who doesn't know how state of the art x-ray tubes work.

Either that, or a liar.

But that's just my opinion.

fw | 10/15/20 11:14AM :

Slowly, we are getting somewhere. Note the number of emitters used in the 'Arc 1.5'

It may work. But its not gonna cost $10,000 ;-)

vaporfly | 10/15/20 11:54AM :

RXR, if you're going to come to a radiologist forum and seek their advice on something (ie. quality of an image), and they give you their opinion (ie. it's terrible), how do you keep badgering them with "why?" How do you expect people to respond? "Because I've read thousands of scans and you haven't"?

I don't get you, man. You keep asking obscure questions of indeterminable relevance, and you challenge everyone to a duel because of course you know better. After all, you've teaching yourself out of a CT textbook since last week.

I apologize if I sound a little mean here. I'm not trying to be. In fact, I think you have some interesting stuff in your mind and can be additive to the forum. I do think, however, if you want to have a more meaningful conversation, stop with the cryptic questions and just lay it all out there. What are you trying to figure out? What do you know already? What specific questions do you have and how are they related to what you're ultimately trying to figure out?

zeuses | 10/15/20 12:26PM :

SeekingAlpha takes an (apologetic) look at NANOX
https://seekingalpha.com/...tain-credentials

According to MuddyWatersReseach the NANOX distribution channel is populated mainly w/ vapor and many w/ a criminal past. The Brazilian distributor specializes in Anal Rectal products. Their South African distributor, Sunset Blessing Mtshali
works out of his bedroom, the Asian distributor is COO of a boutique hotel. Need I describe the Russian distributor?

Clearly a case of Fake It 'Til You Make It and
Build It and They Will Come.

'The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so'
Louis Pasteur, July 8,1876

gasmasspsoas | 10/15/20 12:29PM :

Bad images to radiologists are like porn to everyone else. We know it when we see it.

zeuses | 10/15/20 12:39PM :

"Bad images to radiologists are like porn to everyone else. We know it when we see it."
You must be related to Justice Potter Stewart. :-)

DoctorDalai | 10/15/20 03:15PM :

Look at the pic of the tubes in the "arc" and then look at the pics they show of the glassware itself:

The one in the middle looks like the one that is installed. But I'm only counting three wires coming out of this. (Thanks, Richard X!) I GUESS kVp and mAs could be controlled with three wires, but there is no way in the world there could be any fan-beam or cone-beam control, steering of the beam, or pretty much any other level of control. And the tubes are pretty clearly [i]fixed[/i] on the arc/ring. There will be NO proper tomography coming out of this thing. POSSIBLY, if the z-axis translation of the ring is smooth enough, they could achieve tomosynthesis, and in fact that term IS utilized.

Take a deep whiff and tell me what you smell:

delawarerad | 10/15/20 03:29PM :

[quote=gasmasspsoas]

Bad images to radiologists are like porn to everyone else. We know it when we see it.
[/quote]

Fantastic! I may have to take this one to StockTwits...

n.rad | 10/15/20 05:25PM :

That hand image they are using on the new site is kind of funny. It’s like someone was walking by a workstation and snapped a photo with a smartphone.

richard.x.roe | 10/15/20 05:35PM :

When I ask for an opinion, I state so. When someone else makes a statement, and I don't understand the justification behind that statement, I ask for it. Saying that the quality is terrible is not useful - I want to know which radiograph, specifically, has terrible quality, and why, specifically, is that quality terrible, so that I can make a judgement for myself.

If you don't like my questions or you don't understand them, that's ok. Others do. Yes, I do teach myself rapidly, and it looks like some radiologists may benefit from a little extra education as well. Isn't USARAD headed by a "radiologist?"

Among other things, I am trying to identify competent people with whom I could discuss Nanox.

[quote=vaporfly]

RXR, if you're going to come to a radiologist forum and seek their advice on something (ie. quality of an image), and they give you their opinion (ie. it's terrible), how do you keep badgering them with "why?" How do you expect people to respond? "Because I've read thousands of scans and you haven't"?

I don't get you, man. You keep asking obscure questions of indeterminable relevance, and you challenge everyone to a duel because of course you know better. After all, you've teaching yourself out of a CT textbook since last week.

I apologize if I sound a little mean here. I'm not trying to be. In fact, I think you have some interesting stuff in your mind and can be additive to the forum. I do think, however, if you want to have a more meaningful conversation, stop with the cryptic questions and just lay it all out there. What are you trying to figure out? What do you know already? What specific questions do you have and how are they related to what you're ultimately trying to figure out?
[/quote]

richard.x.roe | 10/15/20 05:44PM :

I don't understand why it would not work for $10,000. The cheap Chinese tubes sell for $60 each (maybe even less these days), and you have 11 tubes in the Arc 1.5. There is no detector in that device. What other significant costs are there?

[quote=fw]
Slowly, we are getting somewhere. Note the number of emitters used in the 'Arc 1.5'
It may work. But its not gonna cost $10,000 ;-)
[/quote]

richard.x.roe | 10/15/20 05:46PM :

That is exactly what happened. But what do you think of the S-value?

[quote=n.rad]
That hand image they are using on the new site is kind of funny. It’s like someone was walking by a workstation and snapped a photo with a smartphone.
[/quote]

vaporfly | 10/15/20 06:41PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

I don't understand why it would not work for $10,000. The cheap Chinese tubes sell for $60 each (maybe even less these days), and you have 11 tubes in the Arc 1.5. There is no detector in that device. What other significant costs are there?

[quote=fw]
Slowly, we are getting somewhere. Note the number of emitters used in the 'Arc 1.5'
It may work. But its not gonna cost $10,000 ;-)
[/quote]
[/quote]

Are you still asking why you can't use dental x-ray tubes for 3d tomo? There's zero chance Nanox will be able to produce its tubes for $100 or its machines for $10k. But whatever, I'm just gonna get some popcorn ready for their big show at RSNA.

RoleCall | 10/15/20 07:05PM :

I believe you don't understand why it wouldn't work

fw | 10/15/20 07:42PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

I don't understand why it would not work for $10,000. The cheap Chinese tubes sell for $60 each (maybe even less these days), and you have 11 tubes in the Arc 1.5. There is no detector in that device. What other significant costs are there?

[quote=fw]
Slowly, we are getting somewhere. Note the number of emitters used in the 'Arc 1.5'
It may work. But its not gonna cost $10,000 ;-)
[/quote]
[/quote]

Just a realistic appraisal of what it costs to certify, manufacture and market a piece of medical equipment.

Further up, I posted the experience with the 'Eclipse Very Light Jet'. People who dont understand an industry often fixate on something that in the grand scheme of things, is not a major cost factor. In the Eclipse VLJ, one of the great innovations was the use of 'friction stir welding' rather than rivets to fasten the different aluminum pieces together. The idea was that the use of that technology, would allow the robotic assembly of aircraft wings and fuselage. The company spent hundreds of millions on porting the process from other industrial applications to aviation. To do so, they had to conduct an extensive testing program until they satisfied the regulator that their plane would not spontaneously disassemble itself. While they spent years of engineering an gobs of money on that, it turns out that the efficiency gained by using that robotic assembly, made a only a minor impact on the final price. They made the same mistakes on Avionics and engine selection, and in the end their jet cost multiples of the original target and fell short on the range/payload projection.
Medicine and aerospace are very similar in a lot of ways.

So no, they wont be able to put out a tomography product even within an order of magnitude of that number.

richard.x.roe | 10/15/20 07:49PM :

I don't recall having asked before, but I am asking now - why can't we use a Chinese "dental" x-ray tube for 3d tomo?

Nanox does not need to produce or design its tubes - it can pivot to sourcing its tubes from Chinese suppliers - they look the same (and hot cathode is more modern than cold cathode anyway) and are readily available for sub-$100 from multiple suppliers. Add a power supply, a raspberry Pi, 11 relays, and you get an Arc 1.5 (a device with a single active X-ray source - any 1 of the 11 available - an approvable FDA device). The real next-gen Arc comes in 2021.

[quote=vaporfly]
Are you still asking why you can't use dental x-ray tubes for 3d tomo? There's zero chance Nanox will be able to produce its tubes for $100 or its machines for $10k. But whatever, I'm just gonna get some popcorn ready for their big show at RSNA.
[/quote]

richard.x.roe | 10/15/20 08:09PM :

You are thinking way ahead of investors. All they care about now is the FDA approval. Can Nanox get its single-source Arc 1.5 device approved? Can Nanox manufacture it for $10,000? Will USARAD agree to get a 1,000 of these devices for free and use them to x-ray employees' bags?

They will think about the tomography much later, in 2021. By the way, Varex (not a fraud!) says that its CNT cold-cathodes can do tomography: https://www.vecimaging.com/products/medical-applications/ (once FDA approved, of course). Nanox could partner with Varex. So there is hope!

Thread Enhancer | 10/15/20 08:22PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

If you don't like my questions or you don't understand them, that's ok. Others do. Yes, I do teach myself rapidly, and it looks like some radiologists may benefit from a little extra education as well. Isn't USARAD headed by a "radiologist?"

Among other things, I am trying to identify competent people with whom I could discuss Nanox.

[/quote]

Get over yourself RXR. Nobody here cares how smart you are. You probably should just go away now. Nobody here competent enough to discuss Nanox with you.

RoleCall | 10/16/20 04:07AM :

Yep, rxr you are having a discussion with yourself

richard.x.roe | 10/16/20 04:58AM :

1. mAs: The footnote to Slide 18, "Clinical Quality Imaging" of Nanox investor presentation states that mAs is MilliAmps per Second (that is, current divided by time)
( https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1795251/000114036120021181/nc10015156x3_ex99-1.htm )

2. Power is measured in volts: "the operating power for this chip is volts versus kilovolts"
( https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/09/22/exclusive-interview-the-motley-fool-sits-down-with/ )

3&4. The tube used by Roentgen was not a cold cathode tube, but rather relied on the thermionic effect. Modern tubes need to be cooled down because of the hot cathode filament, not because the anode is heated by the electron hits:
"The X-ray [tube] that [he] invented is based on the thermionic effect, which is basically a filament that you heat up to 2,000 degrees [C]. You need to cool it down and you need technicians [?], and, overall, it's not really scalable today." (same Fool interview transcript above)

5. ... "X-ray technology was invented over 100 years ago by William Rankin."
(from the same transcript - already mentioned in this forum, and maybe not fair, because it is just a transcription error - Nanox CEO pronounces the inventor correctly elsewhere - but still begs the question why was the transcript rushed and published without any basic editing)

[quote=jeremy_rutman_IP]
"Nanox also claims that Roentgen used hot cathode, that mAs means mA per second, that power is measured in volts, that the heat problem occurs due to the cathode rather than the anode, etc."
Can you point me to those , for my collection ...
[/quote]

richard.x.roe | 10/16/20 06:15AM :

Do radiologists often use (or request usage) of resolution test strips like these for newly acquired CR detectors? Can one readily tell whether any moire effects are due to the CR (and reader) vs from the grid?
https://www.supertechx-ray.com/QualityControlPhantoms/test-patterns-resolution.php

vaporfly | 10/16/20 06:29AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

You are thinking way ahead of investors. All they care about now is the FDA approval. Can Nanox get its single-source Arc 1.5 device approved? Can Nanox manufacture it for $10,000? Will USARAD agree to get a 1,000 of these devices for free and use them to x-ray employees' bags?

They will think about the tomography much later, in 2021. By the way, Varex (not a fraud!) says that its CNT cold-cathodes can do tomography: https://www.vecimaging.com/products/medical-applications/ (once FDA approved, of course). Nanox could partner with Varex. So there is hope!
[/quote]

No one is going to partner with Nanox, because if Nanox doesn't have a commercially viable cold cathode, what do they bring to the table? I have spoken with CT physicists at 3 incumbent OEM/tube makers, and they're highly skeptical that Nanox will even have a commercially-ready tube, let alone entire system, anytime soon.

fw | 10/16/20 06:52AM :

[quote=vaporfly]
No one is going to partner with Nanox, because if Nanox doesn't have a commercially viable cold cathode, what do they bring to the table? I have spoken with CT physicists at 3 incumbent OEM/tube makers, and they're highly skeptical that Nanox will even have a commercially-ready tube, let alone entire system, anytime soon.
[/quote]

If Nanox was an israeli/japanese startup that came to the table with the message of: [i]'we are in the process of developing a cold cathode tube that can do X/Y/Z and we believe it has the following characteristics that differentiate it from thermoionic tubes on one hand and CNT technology on the other'[/i], they would probably have no shortage of medical equipment makers interested in partnering with them. It is a common pattern for those companies to partner with smaller entities to get their hands on an emerging technology. Varex for example isn't developing a CNT system in-house, they are partnering with a small german startup that conveniently sits in Siemens backyard. The development team has engineers with a background at Siemens, Varian and GE.

You dont need to have a commercially viable product to find a partner, but you need to be able to show something of substance.

From everything that has come out so far, they may not in the R&D business. They appear to be in the investment collection business. Think 'The Producers' (movie and musical). The Nanox Arc is the equivalent of 'Springtime for Hitler'.

| :

richard.x.roe | 10/16/20 07:07AM :

Well, Nanox already partnered with Foxconn, the world's largest provider of electronics manufacturing services, and signed a contract manufacturing agreement for commercial production and assembly of the Arc. It also partnered with SK Telecom. These two are huge organizations and often engage with obvious scams and often have questionable business practices, but they are real companies.

Free money (or shares) is a very powerful incentive, and that is what Nanox brings to the table. Many people are skeptical, but have they seen the tube and the device? USARAD has, and they (being "investors") say it is all real.

By the way, why are people skeptical about Nanox having a commercially-ready tube? Have they seen any specs, or maybe test results? All I have seen are papers from others and a greater than 2.5A/cm2 density number from an old 2015 Nanox "datasheet," in addition to some video. However, Nanox started fabrication of its secret "detector" chips in 2013 using Singapore's IME fab, so maybe they had all the tube chips ready by then? Maybe the company just likes to keep things secret and misleading - Tesla does this all the time, and look at their market capitalization (they are almost valued more than all the major automakers combined).

vaporfly | 10/16/20 07:09AM :

For the most part I agree, but it's sometimes hard to get OEMs to re-design their product for your new component, unless there's a significant new use case, or if it's a plug-n-play replacement of an existing component.

Look at the CareStream mobile x-ray unit that uses a CNT cathode. Their partner Micro-X ended up designing and producing the entire thing (minus the detector). In Varex's case, I believe they're still looking for an OEM to adopt their JV's CNT cathode, which may not happen until they can prove consistent manufacturing and a better life expectancy. Varex also has a very interest photon-counting detector, but again it takes time to convince OEMs to spend the money to incorporate a new component.

vaporfly | 10/16/20 07:17AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

Well, Nanox already partnered with Foxconn, the world's largest provider of electronics manufacturing services, and signed a contract manufacturing agreement for commercial production and assembly of the Arc. It also partnered with SK Telecom. These two are huge organizations and often engage with obvious scams and often have questionable business practices, but they are real companies.

Free money (or shares) is a very powerful incentive, and that is what Nanox brings to the table. Many people are skeptical, but have they seen the tube and the device? USARAD has, and they (being "investors") say it is all real.

By the way, why are people skeptical about Nanox having a commercially-ready tube? Have they seen any specs, or maybe test results? All I have seen are papers from others and a greater than 2.5A/cm2 density number from an old 2015 Nanox "datasheet," in addition to some video. However, Nanox started fabrication of its secret "detector" chips in 2013 using Singapore's IME fab, so maybe they had all the tube chips ready by then? Maybe the company just likes to keep things secret and misleading - Tesla does this all the time, and look at their market capitalization (they are almost valued more than all the major automakers combined).
[/quote]

Go check out Nanox's actual disclosures re: its Foxconn and SK relationships. They're meaningless LOIs. As for why are people so skeptical? For starters, people who are more knowledgeable about tube development than any of us say so. They know the timelines and technical difficulties to develop a cold cathode, generally speaking. And no, I did not interrogate them the way you're interrogating everyone else (because I value my relationships with them) so I won't be able to tell you why they are skeptical. Also, the X-ray/CT world being fairly small, word gets out. I've heard some stuff around their FDA submissions, but it's all 2nd hand/3rd hand stuff so not worth repeating, but as you can imagine, they are not flattering.

richard.x.roe | 10/16/20 07:26AM :

The Nanox fans will argue that the OEM inertia is the whole point. Think of how Apple destroyed Nokia, Motorola, and RIM (Blackberry) with the introduction of the iPhone. Or what Tesla is doing now to the legacy car manufacturers' business plans. CareStream and Micro-X are simply not thinking big enough.

vaporfly | 10/16/20 07:37AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

The Nanox fans will argue that the OEM inertia is the whole point. Think of how Apple destroyed Nokia, Motorola, and RIM (Blackberry) with the introduction of the iPhone. Or what Tesla is doing now to the legacy car manufacturers' business plans. CareStream and Micro-X are simply not thinking big enough.
[/quote]

If Nanox can actually deliver on a fraction of what they claim to be able to do, the world will be a better place for it and I will tip my hat to them. People are skeptical because it just doesn't smell right. Apple's iPhone was revolutionary, but Apple also has something Nanox never had - credibility and a previous track record. Tesla is a better comparison, and frankly they've been very impressive in proving the doubters wrong. But as far as I know, Tesla never used fake videos, misrepresented their products, and Musk openly warned everyone that Tesla was heading into "production hell", and the company came out of it stronger. That is transparency. Nanox is more like Nikola than anything else. You keep asking "how do you know they don't have it". Just as with Nikola, it's harder to prove a negative than a positive.

richard.x.roe | 10/16/20 07:41AM :

Why do you say that the Foxconn agreement is a meaningless letter of intent?
This looks real:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1795251/000114036120017084/nt10006151x8_ex10-1.htm
(well, the appendices will be agreed by the parties by 90 days prior to the first expected delivery date, but those appendices are confidential anyway)

You are right, however, that in the X-ray/CT world the word gets out. I was talking to a representative of a reputable test equipment vendor (that will not be named) the other day, and, out of the blue, he offered free consulting and testing services and putting his engineers on a plane just to get access to a Nanox' source.

richard.x.roe | 10/16/20 07:46AM :

Oh, you will be surprised about Tesla once that fraud collapses. Tesla does use fake videos, misrepresents its products, and files misleading financial reports, often. Nikola just didn't do a good job.

[quote=vaporfly]
Tesla never used fake videos, misrepresented their products, and Musk openly warned everyone that Tesla was heading into "production hell", and the company came out of it stronger.
[/quote]

fw | 10/16/20 07:55AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]
By the way, why are people skeptical about Nanox having a commercially-ready tube?
[/quote]

Because everything they have shown us so far, looks like a college engineering lab science project. The tubes look like an artisan glassblower made them one by one. Doesn't mean that they dont work or that their claims about their cold-cathode emitter are false, but it doesn't tell me 'commercial ready product'.

[quote]
Have they seen any specs, or maybe test results?
[/quote]

Something that goes beyond a blurry cellphone shot taken off a screen would be nice.

Tesla was selling an actual car that you could lease and drive, 2 years before their IPO. Apple was a multi-billion corporation in the personal computer market before they branched out into cellphones. Very different circumstances.

vaporfly | 10/16/20 07:55AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

Why do you say that the Foxconn agreement is a meaningless letter of intent?
This looks real:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1795251/000114036120017084/nt10006151x8_ex10-1.htm
(well, the appendices will be agreed by the parties by 90 days prior to the first expected delivery date, but those appendices are confidential anyway)

You are right, however, that in the X-ray/CT world the word gets out. I was talking to a representative of a reputable test equipment vendor (that will not be named) the other day, and, out of the blue, he offered free consulting and testing services and putting his engineers on a plane just to get access to a Nanox' source.
[/quote]

I don't know what else to say to you, man, and this is getting off topic anyway. I'm going to guess that you haven't read many of these contracts before. You can either take my word for it or keep questioning everything, but this is a LOI, and it's too tiring for me to explain why.

Thread Enhancer | 10/16/20 08:52AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

Oh, you will be surprised about Tesla once that fraud collapses. Tesla does use fake videos, misrepresents its products, and files misleading financial reports, often. Nikola just didn't do a good job.

[/quote]

The thing Tesla has that none of the others discussed have is an actual great product and a very loyal customer base. I can't see how the company makes money but I love their car. We have two in our family.

Thread Enhancer | 10/16/20 08:54AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

Many people are skeptical, but have they seen the tube and the device? USARAD has, and they (being "investors") say it is all real.

[/quote]

Here is something we can help you with. Telerad groups like USARAD are the frauds of our profession. They will partner with anyone and lose a little bit on each deal but make it up in volume.

DoctorDalai | 10/16/20 09:09AM :

Richard...what is it you are seeking here and on Seeking Alpha? You have done a good job of educating yourself, but then you argue with us and even with yourself sometimes. Are you looking to pump and dump or sell short?

Bottom line is that the physics of this thing just don't work. I don't care if they show the thing teleporting cancers out of the body and into a jar at the foot of the gantry...I won't believe it. And you shouldn't either. But that is just my humble opinion, worth every cent you paid for it.

n.rad | 10/16/20 09:56AM :

This is the NNOX “demo” that Dr. Yuz of USARad saw lol.

https://assets-global.web...x%20Hero-transcode.mp4

Thread Enhancer | 10/16/20 10:21AM :

RXR. reading SA I think I understand your concern. You look at the financials of Tesla and made a short case against them and got burned. You are afraid of the same thing happening with Nanox. Smart.

As we have said, Tesla has a great product that people like. Nanox has nothing. Don't worry about the deal with USARAD. They are bottom feeders that would sell their soul just to have dibs on a contract that has "potential" to give them telerad imaging volume. They don't care if it works or not.

DoctorDalai | 10/16/20 10:25AM :

Looks like the opening credits for "The Six Million Dollar Man"...

n.rad | 10/16/20 10:26AM :

I guess they can subtract out the aorta with their multispectral capabilities.

n.rad | 10/16/20 10:30AM :

Truly amazing technology.

RoleCall | 10/16/20 10:37AM :

Tesla isn't the best example. Plenty of people including musk think it's way overvalued. Bubble could pop at any moment.

But at least there is value in tesla. They have always produced something that people wanted, even before going public. Nnox is selling vaporware with potentially negative value

richard.x.roe | 10/16/20 01:27PM :

I am seeking to make an informed decision whether to buy or sell this stock, based on limited (and likely misleading) information, from all available public sources.

The physics and economics do not need to work. The stock, for example, could easily double, if they get FDA approval for the single-source Arc 1.5, made with cheap Chinese tubes, for example. Same, if they show on Zoom how to synthesize a moving heart using an Arc 1.7 prototype. Or if they sign a partnership deal with Varex. They will worry about the tomosynthesis, CT, no-contrast angiography, etc in 2011, when they are flush with cash.

Whether we believe is irrelevant - there are enough US and Korean "investors," who will just buy on any "good" news (the stock is already hard to short, and thus it is primed for a massive short squeeze). Even supposedly reputable investment banking firms, like Jefferies, Oppeneheimer, and Cantor Fitzgerald, are supporting the company.

So I am looking for some crucial tidbits that others may have missed, like poor (that is, unsafe) beam quality, slow and expensive detectors, one or two defective tubes in the Arc, etc. that will convince me that the company cannot get an FDA approval, cannot do an impressive Zoom demo, and cannot get Varex to sign any deal, for example.

[quote=DoctorDalai]

Richard...what is it you are seeking here and on Seeking Alpha? You have done a good job of educating yourself, but then you argue with us and even with yourself sometimes. Are you looking to pump and dump or sell short?

Bottom line is that the physics of this thing just don't work. I don't care if they show the thing teleporting cancers out of the body and into a jar at the foot of the gantry...I won't believe it. And you shouldn't either. But that is just my humble opinion, worth every cent you paid for it.
[/quote]

n.rad | 10/16/20 02:08PM :

You could just stay out of the stock (short or long).

RoleCall | 10/16/20 02:14PM :

You don't need to mess around with this. Invest broadly in ETFs and hold them forever. You're more likely to lose than win if you think you're smarter than everyone else

richard.x.roe | 10/16/20 02:24PM :

That's called a pivot. Nanox was selling cold cathodes only (not even sources!) in 2016 ( https://web.archive.org/w...logy-Brochure-2016.pdf )

Weirdly, their latest tech web page shows that their new tube can only do up to 30KV, with an extremely erratic and unpredictable current, ranging from 100A to 9000A (carefully take a good look at the kV and A scales - they are very faint and hard to see, at least on my aged monitor). How is that for innovation?

[quote=RoleCall]
Nnox is selling vaporware with potentially negative value
[/quote]

richard.x.roe | 10/16/20 02:35PM :

Yes, that's a good advice. Except that if the ETF custodian or administrator goes bankrupt, you end up with nothing (if the government is too busy bailing out others). And that's assuming your ETF is actually an ETF rather than a leveraged speculator in over-the-counter derivatives or even just an active daytrader - those also trade as ETFs these days. Pools like that existed in 1929, but then nobody wanted to touch them for 60+ years. It pays to read the ETF prospectus in full, from time to time.

[quote=RoleCall]
You don't need to mess around with this. Invest broadly in ETFs and hold them forever. You're more likely to lose than win if you think you're smarter than everyone else
[/quote]

fw | 10/16/20 02:36PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]
Weirdly, their latest tech web page shows that their new tube can only do up to 30KV, with an extremely erratic and unpredictable current, ranging from 100A to 9000A (carefully take a good look at the kV and A scales - they are very faint and hard to see, at least on my aged monitor). How is that for innovation?

[/quote]

You assume that that plot has its source in measured data. That's mistake #1.

RoleCall | 10/16/20 02:43PM :

What ETFs are you looking at? I'm talking about things like VTI,VOO. Sorry, but I have to disagree with you in that I think there's very low risk of vanguard going bankrupt and losing all of my money

richard.x.roe | 10/16/20 02:49PM :

Granted! But do you know of any other 35mm-diameter tube, even in design stage, that can do 9,000 Amperes at 7 kV (63 megawatts in all), with simple air cooling?

[quote=fw]
You assume that that plot has its source in measured data. That's mistake #1.
[/quote]

fw | 10/16/20 03:28PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

Granted! But do you know of any other 35mm-diameter tube, even in design stage, that can do 9,000 Amperes at 7 kV (63 megawatts in all), with simple air cooling?

[quote=fw]
You assume that that plot has its source in measured data. That's mistake #1.
[/quote]
[/quote]

You are trying to make sense of a freehand drawing generated by someone in the marketing department.

richard.x.roe | 10/16/20 03:36PM :

I am sorry, but Nanox does not have a marketing department. Page 102 here shows that the company has only one person working in "Sales and Marketing," and hopefully he is focused on sales (rather than marketing).
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1795251/000114036120018983/nt10006151x17_424b4.htm

[quote=fw]
You are trying to make sense of a freehand drawing generated by someone in the marketing department.
[/quote]

n.rad | 10/16/20 04:05PM :

I think he/she can manage to make that little graph. Probably an easy task after creating that slick beating heart animation for Dr. Yuz.

Maybe they’ll show that at RSNA.

fw | 10/16/20 04:08PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

I am sorry, but Nanox does not have a marketing department. Page 102 here shows that the company has only one person working in "Sales and Marketing," and hopefully he is focused on sales (rather than marketing).
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1795251/000114036120018983/nt10006151x17_424b4.htm

[quote=fw]
You are trying to make sense of a freehand drawing generated by someone in the marketing department.
[/quote]
[/quote]

That would explain the haphazard website.

Either way, this is obviously not data generated on any kind of calibration equipment. It simply wouldn't look that way. Soumeone who thought that this would make a good argument for their tube drew up a graph on some apple presentation software. The same kind of person who would think that the few watts used to heat the filament is the source of any heat issues in a x-ray tube.

DoctorDalai | 10/16/20 06:19PM :

Richard...buddy...come clean. Are you trying to find out enough dirt to short the damn thing or pump and dump? At this point, I think you can talk the talk better than anyone at NNOX. So you tell us...is it real or is it Memorex? You KNOW what we think and that really hasn't changed.

richard.x.roe | 10/16/20 08:41PM :

It has been clear to me since Nanox deleted the "raw performance" video (after Muddy Waters publicly addressed some issues with it, and I had noticed some other things). It is actually clear to most everybody in finance, because the borrow rate is over 70% annualized - that is, if you want to short the stock, you have to pay loan-shark rates to those that are long the stock and lending it to you. So, yes, everybody knows the damn thing is a fraud, even those that are long the stock - in fact, they are long because they know it is a fraud, and frauds almost never disappoint (until they collapse, for one reason or another).

However, knowing that something is a fraud is just the first step. Proving it is a fraud and anticipating how things might unfold is much harder. After all, these people are not amateurs - they have already raised a lot of money and they have a plan. They should not be underestimated.

[quote=DoctorDalai]
Richard...buddy...come clean. Are you trying to find out enough dirt to short the damn thing or pump and dump? At this point, I think you can talk the talk better than anyone at NNOX. So you tell us...is it real or is it Memorex? You KNOW what we think and that really hasn't changed.
[/quote]

Thread Enhancer | 10/16/20 09:07PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

It has been clear to me since Nanox deleted the "raw performance" video (after Muddy Waters publicly addressed some issues with it, and I had noticed some other things). It is actually clear to most everybody in finance, because the borrow rate is over 70% annualized - that is, if you want to short the stock, you have to pay loan-shark rates to those that are long the stock and lending it to you. So, yes, everybody knows the damn thing is a fraud, even those that are long the stock - in fact, they are long because they know it is a fraud, and frauds almost never disappoint (until they collapse, for one reason or another).

However, knowing that something is a fraud is just the first step. Proving it is a fraud and anticipating how things might unfold is much harder. After all, these people are not amateurs - they have already raised a lot of money and they have a plan. They should not be underestimated.

[quote=DoctorDalai]
Richard...buddy...come clean. Are you trying to find out enough dirt to short the damn thing or pump and dump? At this point, I think you can talk the talk better than anyone at NNOX. So you tell us...is it real or is it Memorex? You KNOW what we think and that really hasn't changed.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Then leave it alone. Perhaps there is no way to predict which way the price is going to go because of the points you make here. Is it that important to your portfolio that you find the "right" answer? There are many other opportunities out there. I made a guess that you were burned by TSLA despite very reasonable conclusions looking at the data. Am I right?

richard.x.roe | 10/16/20 10:42PM :

Well, let's say that it is a good idea to leave the diagnostic radiology to radiologists and investing (and shorting) to the investment professionals. I am not here really to receive or give investment advice but to learn Nanox-related things I have not considered and, hopefully, to get answers to some questions I may still have - such as acceptable beam quality and S-values, the cause of what appear to be moire artifacts, etc. Many things that are obvious to radiologists are not obvious to me, OBVIOUSLY, and vice versa, especially when I am relying on operation manuals, published specs, and blurry videos in a foreign language, while radiologists have the actual equipment in front of them. In the process, maybe radiologists can too learn something new. Oh, and I would love to hear the feedback about the "featured" industry demonstration by Nanox that is scheduled for December 2 at 6pm EST - maybe the beating heart will be even in color? (and I wouldn't mind getting a guest pass, as I have not registered yet

).

[quote=Thread Enhancer]
Then leave it alone. Perhaps there is no way to predict which way the price is going to go because of the points you make here. Is it that important to your portfolio that you find the "right" answer? There are many other opportunities out there. I made a guess that you were burned by TSLA despite very reasonable conclusions looking at the data. Am I right?
[/quote]

RoleCall | 10/17/20 09:38AM :

Richard, you really should consider going by Dick for short

zeuses | 10/17/20 10:52AM :

". . . you really should consider going by Dick for short"
Very nice play on words!

Suprasellar Cistern | 10/17/20 02:31PM :

The “investing professionals” have been beaten by a passive S&P 500 index fund for decades, but carry on

Thread Enhancer | 10/17/20 07:24PM :

Especially the professionals that are waisting time doing endless research on message boards trying to figure out whether or not it’s a good idea to be long or short on a company that is an obvious fraud. Not someone I would want managing my money.

n.rad | 10/18/20 05:33AM :

off-topic but what’s an investment professional?

IMHO you can do very well investing if you have interest, devote the time, and have a 4th grade math education. That includes getting into complicated hedging strategies. Not only is a degree in finance (or whatever) not necessary, it’s not very helpful. Are you a “professional” if someone pays you? If so, are all the swing traders on social media with thousands of paid followers professionals?

Thread Enhancer | 10/18/20 07:46AM :

I take it from RXR’s post that he counts himself among the ranks. From what I can tell his status there comes from writing a few articles on SA and hanging out on investment message boards. I say the answer to your last question is yes.

| :

Thread Enhancer | 10/18/20 07:58AM :

“Moxa,

Rex Dwyer (aka Richard x Roe) is a short seller trying very hard to discredit the company, scare shareholders into selling their positions for his own personal gain and the profit of his clients. Do some DD on Rex.

His early background is EE at Berkeley turn day trader in the dot com bubble days (late 90s). So he talks just enough RF tech talk to sound credible, but in fact are distortions of the truth.

Don't be fooled.”

Now don’t make too much of this because as we can see with Nanox, the believers will go to all sorts of mocking and ridicule to discredit those that argue against their beliefs. Still, this all I could find during a quick search for this “investment professional” Most I know have plenty of information to be found with a quick search.

n.rad | 10/18/20 08:10AM :

Yeah, I’m always a little skeptical when someone claims that another person’s motives are to convince others online to sell. That is a common argument you see but I would wager most of those on Stock Twits, yahoo, SA etc hold relatively small positions. Hypothetically if I spent hours everyday arguing with people online and was able to convince a couple of guys to sell their 100 share holdings of NNOX it wouldn’t really help my short position much.

Thread Enhancer | 10/18/20 08:33AM :

So that quote above was discussing his short position in WATT. Another hyped stock that he was smart to short. Looking on Twitter I see is or was also short TSLA and AAPL

zeuses | 10/18/20 08:41AM :

"The “investing professionals” have been beaten by a passive S&P 500 index fund for decades, but carry on"

I'm not a professional investor my Tech investments have been beating the S&P for years. ten years ago AMD was about $7/share today it's $84/share, Digital Turbine, APPS was appx $2/share today $38/share, Apple $9/share today $119/share,
Microsoft $30/share today $219/share. I also own Alphabet, Facebook, and others. It's not too difficult if you invest for growth, invest in what you know, mainly buy/hold, and follow your investments closely

PS: The stock growth numbers came from Yahoo Finance the numbers may appear distorted due stock splits.

n.rad | 10/18/20 08:44AM :

Also, just my $0.02, take it for what it’s worth (I’m not a “professional”) but I believe it’s fundamentally flawed logic to primarily take short positions. The market is an investment apparatus that rises. It’s like betting against the house. In the last 78 years, the S&P 500 has been up 62 of those 78 years.

zeuses | 10/18/20 08:50AM :

". . . it’s fundamentally flawed logic to primarily take short positions. . .
I'm not a "short" investor but I believe short firms such as Muddy Waters research serve a useful purpose in the markets by exposing fraudulent companies, OTHO, I also believe shorts are responsible for killing some companies that didn't deserve it.

n.rad | 10/18/20 08:56AM :

Not arguing that. Just saying from the standpoint of an individual investor there are more reliable ways to make money.

zeuses | 10/18/20 09:35AM :

". . . Looking on Twitter I see is or was also short TSLA and AAPL. . . "

IMO, TSLA was a wildcard w/ a visionary as a CEO. EVs - I believed the holy grail was H2/electric. No longer true with QuantumScape on the horizon now solid state batteries replace hydrogen. I don't understand the "short" on AAPL, except when Jobs got CA and decided not to avail himself to conventional medical tx.

Thread Enhancer | 10/18/20 03:26PM :

[quote=n.rad]

Also, just my $0.02, take it for what it’s worth (I’m not a “professional”) but I believe it’s fundamentally flawed logic to primarily take short positions. The market is an investment apparatus that rises. It’s like betting against the house. In the last 78 years, the S&P 500 has been up 62 of those 78 years.
[/quote]

RXR became a hedge fund manager after a short career as a message board professional. Hedge funds by definition are both long and short. Doesn’t mean they will make money.

Thread Enhancer | 10/18/20 03:28PM :

[quote=zeuses]

". . . Looking on Twitter I see is or was also short TSLA and AAPL. . . "

IMO, TSLA was a wildcard w/ a visionary as a CEO. EVs - I believed the holy grail was H2/electric. No longer true with QuantumScape on the horizon now solid state batteries replace hydrogen. I don't understand the "short" on AAPL, except when Jobs got CA and decided not to avail himself to conventional medical tx.
[/quote]

If you read RXR’s Twitter feed you will see that his logic was based on the stock spilts. I’ll leave it to the rest of you to figure out the logic.

n.rad | 10/18/20 04:04PM :

New TMF article basically trying to cast doubt on the short reports.

https://www.fool.com/inve...timate-contrarian-buy/

Thread Enhancer | 10/18/20 05:26PM :

While TMF has given me some winners, SHOP being the latest big one, their handling of NNOX has been atrocious.

Just read the article. This quote makes me wonder even more. Do they not under stand the difference between 50% up vs. 50% down?

“Prior to the CEO's announcement, Nano-X's stock plunged nearly 50% following the release of the report from Citron. (The S&P 500 was relatively flat over that timeframe.) Since then, however, the healthcare stock has recovered from most of those losses, rising by more than 50%.”

I guess if $35 compared to $60 is “mostly recovered” maybe we should reconsider. I love how “unnamed radiologists” are part of their thesis why Muddy Waters is wrong.

RoleCall | 10/18/20 06:14PM :

I was already cooling on TMF due to all of the "3 xxxx to make you rich this week" posts and deceptive self congratulation of their stock picks which essentially rely on amazon and a few other picks 20 years ago. The weak NNOX interview sealed the deal: it's off my bookmark bar. Same deal for seeking alpha. Bunch of hacks

fw | 10/19/20 05:19AM :

[quote=n.rad]

Yeah, I’m always a little skeptical when someone claims that another person’s motives are to convince others online to sell. That is a common argument you see but I would wager most of those on Stock Twits, yahoo, SA etc hold relatively small positions. Hypothetically if I spent hours everyday arguing with people online and was able to convince a couple of guys to sell their 100 share holdings of NNOX it wouldn’t really help my short position much.
[/quote]

The idea is to sow doubt that spreads in a viral fashion beyond the respective stock board. Some items discussed here are now all over the stock boards and from there into the research reports created for those who hold the moneybags.

vaporfly | 10/19/20 09:36AM :

FWIW, I will add my 2c here.

I am what you'd call a "professional investor". By that, I mean it's been my career since college. Studied some finance in college, but really got my basic training in investment banking and private equity, followed by public equities (long/short) ever since. I say that not to disparage "day traders" or "non-professionals", because frankly, unlikely medicine, there is so much luck involved in this business (and markets tend to go up anyway), you don't need any specialized training to do well. But at the same time, I wouldn't say there isn't a difference between a "professional" and a "non-professional". I personally have a hard time talking stocks with non-professionals, because it's almost like we are playing in the same pool but live completely separate lives. A non-professional can do fantastically well buying all kinds of stuff I'd never want to touch, and I don't have a problem with that. There is so much retail activity in the markets these days, and they're actually very influential on the markets in the short term. Our job is to stay focused and not be distracted, and try to look for inefficiencies in the market.

Anyway, you guys have been very helpful in answering my dumb questions about X-rays, so I'll also be happy to explain anything about investing to you.

1. We short stocks not because we are trying to lose money on purpose, but the whole aim of a long/short fund is to deliver an attractive "risk-adjusted" return. Trust me, I know that in aggregate we lose money on shorts. My partners and I discuss that all the time. Markets go up over time. But the purpose of having a short book is to reduce volatility on the portfolio. Sometimes it's so you can apply leverage (i.e. try to hedge out most of the risk, and then amplify the gain through leverage). Sometimes it's so you can have exposure to the market without taking on the full volatility of the stock market. We don't market to individual investors, but institutions care about what's called a Sharpe Ratio (think of it as excess returns divided by a measure of volatility). So they'd prefer an investment that averages 10% returns with 1% standard deviation (volatility), over an investment that averages 20% returns with 30% SD. You sacrifice some of the upside so you don't get run over during the downturns.

2. It really makes no sense to argue with people on SA, yahoo, stocktwits, etc. In fact, I don't even have accounts on those sites, and only browse them if I suspect there is news on a company and I don't see the news on the obvious sources (streetaccount, bloomberg, etc). Like someone else said, it makes zero difference to me if a day trader is buying or selling his 1000 shares of a stock. I don't know of any other professional investors that bother posting on those sites, so you'd be just arguing with other people who don't really don't have a clue. Again, I'm not saying those people are "wrong" about the stock prices. Stocks go up in general, so if you go long a stock, you automatically have a 50%+ chance of being right. But you will almost never gain any insights into a company from anyone in those chat rooms.

3. I agree with RXR that sites like auntminnie can be useful. Not to convince anyone else that NNOX is a fraud, but it's reassuring to know that medical professionals don't think NNOX is real, and they have reasonable explanations for it. I do think it's silly to argue about the NNOX stock here though, for the same reasons as above. Besides, this stock is very difficult to short (borrow cost is quite high, if you can even locate it; our prime broker warned us that the shares they were able to locate are not reliable and could be called away any moment). I'm certainly not going to buy a stock that I think is a fraud. So as someone else here said, just let it be.

4. RXR made some statements that should be corrected. I think most people should just buy ETFs because it's very hard to gain an edge on specific stocks. And most plain vanilla ETFs are safe. Fund assets should be segregated from custodian assets, so you should have nothing to fear even if Vanguard went bankrupt (which isn't going to happen anyway). Also, I would not trust investment banks for their opinions. That's how the sellside works. I'm not saying they're maliciously giving you bad advice, but it's best to see them as conduits of information from the company, especially in NNOX's case, when the only banks bothering to cover it are the same ones that got paid in the IPO. They will continue to defend the company until it's a penny stock and no longer has any prospects to generating any more banking or trading fees.

RoleCall | 10/19/20 10:34AM :

Thanks for your insight

Thread Enhancer | 10/19/20 10:54AM :

[quote=vaporfly]

2. It really makes no sense to argue with people on SA, yahoo, stocktwits, etc. In fact, I don't even have accounts on those sites, and only browse them if I suspect there is news on a company and I don't see the news on the obvious sources (streetaccount, bloomberg, etc). Like someone else said, it makes zero difference to me if a day trader is buying or selling his 1000 shares of a stock. I don't know of any other professional investors that bother posting on those sites, so you'd be just arguing with other people who don't really don't have a clue. Again, I'm not saying those people are "wrong" about the stock prices. Stocks go up in general, so if you go long a stock, you automatically have a 50%+ chance of being right. But you will almost never gain any insights into a company from anyone in those chat rooms.

[/quote]

Thank you VF. This was a very valuable post. Point 2. is exactly why RXR is not a "professional" the way you are. Anyone that has a large presence on these types of sites is doing more than "research" IMO. They are hoping to manipulate behavior. RXR started his career on the boards and then was hired as a fund manager in 1999. If he had moved over and become successful and then left the boards to do his job he would have my respect the way you do.

zeuses | 10/19/20 01:44PM :

VF - "I am what you'd call a "professional investor". By that, I mean it's been my career since college. . . "

Thanks for posting your lengthy informationative reply.

richard.x.roe | 10/20/20 09:36AM :

Can you please take a look at these images? I have added the red markings where I have spotted some differences. These are supposed to be images of a phantom used to support a 510K FDA submission for a new medical system, one taken with the new system and the other one with a "legacy system," both with some unspecified post-processing involved. My questions are:

1. Is there a reason to believe that two different phantoms were used?

2. What kV/mAs combination would you generally recommend for a film vs CR vs DR (for equipment that you are familiar with) for taking this particular image of a phantom?

3. Can you tell whether any of the two images were severely underexposed or severely overexposed?

4. Are any of these two images useful? If not, what is the problem - wrong exposure, post-processing, too-much image compression?

5. What other question should I be asking?

Image A:

Image B:

Bonus for the "investigative" non-professional investors here: think about how I will be using these pictures and comments to manipulate behavior on social media.

fw | 10/20/20 09:57AM :

The person is beyond help. Even lost their hand.

Thread Enhancer | 10/20/20 10:09AM :

The only question I can answer confidently based on the available information is 1. If one looks at the distal radius it is pretty clear it is the same phantom. Your circles can be explained by slight changes in position.

richard.x.roe | 10/20/20 10:16AM :

What exposure (kV/mAs) would you recommend for taking this image, on equipment you are familiar with? Please specify whether DR/CR/film.

[quote=Thread Enhancer]
The only question I can answer confidently based on the available information is 1. If one looks at the distal radius it is pretty clear it is the same phantom. Your circles can be explained by slight changes in position.
[/quote]

delawarerad | 10/20/20 10:30AM :

Same phantom. Lucencies in radial styloid and lunate are the same on both images.

Thread Enhancer | 10/20/20 10:31AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

What exposure (kV/mAs) would you recommend for taking this image, on equipment you are familiar with? Please specify whether DR/CR/film.

[quote=Thread Enhancer]
The only question I can answer confidently based on the available information is 1. If one looks at the distal radius it is pretty clear it is the same phantom. Your circles can be explained by slight changes in position.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I just realized something. You should go to the AM tech forum with your questions. Radiologists rarely know much about technique. The techs should be able to help and there is likely a protocol book they can look at if it's not in their memory bank.

richard.x.roe | 10/20/20 12:02PM :

Thank you, delawarerad and Thread Enhancer !

RoleCall | 10/20/20 12:18PM :

I think he's circling the bag🤣

richard.x.roe | 10/20/20 12:58PM :

Yes, I am. By the way, what is the purpose of this bag? To avoid sticking residue on the actual phantom from the tape?

[quote=RoleCall]
I think he's circling the bag🤣
[/quote]

RoleCall | 10/20/20 01:25PM :

Reminds me of the first year resident who gets so distracted by the EKG leads and other things overlying the patient that they don't see in the endotracheal tube in the bronchus

richard.x.roe | 10/20/20 01:38PM :

What about this image (from a phantom manufacturer)? Is it the same phantom? Anything remarkable here?

Image C

DoctorDalai | 10/21/20 06:53AM :

It's the skeleton of a human hand encased in lucite. This is a different hand than seen in the Nanox images. Where are you going with this?

richard.x.roe | 10/21/20 08:20AM :

That is not correct. This particular phantom is using artificial bones. Image C is from this model: https://www.yohmai.com/sectional-x-ray-phantom-with-artificial-bones-right-hand-transparent-model-r16707.html

Why did you think it had real bones? The phantom in Image C looks to me the same as the one in Image A/B. No?

Here is where I am going with this: I am trying to determine the proper exposure (kV/mAs) assuming reasonable filtering for imaging these phantoms. My original hypothesis was that Nanox intentionally overexposed the "legacy" image, and underexposed the image from the Arc (to claim lower exposure, even though, in fact, the exposure was much higher due to horrendous HVL, that is useless radiation). However, I have no idea what the proper exposure is for imaging a phantom with artificial bones.

[quote=DoctorDalai]

It's the skeleton of a human hand encased in lucite. This is a different hand than seen in the Nanox images. Where are you going with this?
[/quote]

DoctorDalai | 10/21/20 08:52AM :

It's a different hand. That's why I'm the radiologist and you are not. And many phantoms, the GOOD ones, do use human tissue.

Did our friends play with the exposures? Of course they did. But if I were you, I would not get so very granular on this and concentrate on the bigger picture of the grandiose, unattainable promises.

Thread Enhancer | 10/21/20 09:04AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

However, I have no idea what the proper exposure is for imaging a phantom with artificial bones.

[/quote]
I don't know who would have any idea, although I believe the goal of creating phantoms is to approximate the need for the same technique as a live patient.

richard.x.roe | 10/21/20 09:32AM :

Ok, thanks. The real reason I am focusing on this is that I am trying to determine whether they could get a 510K approval for a single-source plain x-ray device by "fooling" the third party that is doing the evaluation. With another similar fraud, Imaging3, the FDA did a good job (but those guys were amateurs - they simply downloaded phantom pictures from websites)

Note that the National Institute of Health (NIH) has been funding a multi-year project led by the same team that invented Nanox' cold-cathode technology 50 years ago for a no-moving-parts, low-cost, 10x speed digital breast tomosynthesis (but it is more like 60-90 degrees so far, not 180)

[quote=DoctorDalai]

It's a different hand. That's why I'm the radiologist and you are not. And many phantoms, the GOOD ones, do use human tissue.

Did our friends play with the exposures? Of course they did. But if I were you, I would not get so very granular on this and concentrate on the bigger picture of the grandiose, unattainable promises.
[/quote]

Thread Enhancer | 10/21/20 10:47AM :

Breast tomosynthesis is fine at 60-90 degrees. In fact it gets more complicated above 15 that is standard for the most widely used vendor, Hologic. It's beyond my time limits to explain why.

I believe your highest yield will be researching on the detector side. You are asking about technique and we have not even gotten into the concepts of grids, buckies, photo-timing and manual technique.

Any functioning unit must take all of this into account. That's just for radiographs. Good luck when one wants to start tomography and tomosynthesis.

richard.x.roe | 10/21/20 11:14AM :

We already determined that Nanox does not have a detector, and does not need one for FDA approval. Although, yes, a premarket submission claiming substantially equivalency to a legally marketed device will be virtually impossible given the lack of mobility in the Arc (except on z axis).

By the time people start caring about whether the CT-like Arc can be actually made and approved, the company would have taken all the money, and will simply announce a hiccup or two.

[quote=Thread Enhancer]

Breast tomosynthesis is fine at 60-90 degrees. In fact it gets more complicated above 15 that is standard for the most widely used vendor, Hologic. It's beyond my time limits to explain why.

I believe your highest yield will be researching on the detector side. You are asking about technique and we have not even gotten into the concepts of grids, buckies, photo-timing and manual technique.

Any functioning unit must take all of this into account. That's just for radiographs. Good luck when one wants to start tomography and tomosynthesis.

[/quote]

vaporfly | 10/21/20 11:38AM :

Is this the first time you're looking at a company seeking 510k clearance (or PMA/BLA/NDA approval)? You're looking in the wrong places, yet somehow you think by digging ever deeper in the wrong places (and asking ever more detailed and esoteric questions), you'll find your answer.

What I mean is - what is your goal? What do you actually know about their application? Do you even know what their reference device is? Do you know what the indication of use is?

If you're trying to prove their device cannot be cleared because of some theoretical limitations, I think you're at a dead end. Most of the debate here is whether or not their proposed multi-source device can do CT or tomo, not whether or not a single-source device can do radiographs. If they have a functional tube and worked with an OEM to design a machine around it, they can get that clearance easily.

If you're trying to prove that they're submitting fake data to the FDA, that is simply impossible unless you have specific (and illegal) knowledge of their confidential application. It really doesn't matter how many fake videos they use on their website.

Ultimately, there are so many reasons why their applications may fail. Maybe they're just idiots and did not submit all the required information. Maybe their source isn't functional or can't be manufactured to spec. Maybe they will fail testing. Maybe they are a fraud and do submit fake data and get caught. None of these things are knowable to outsiders, no matter how knowledgeable. You seem to have this (in my opinion, very naive) view that with enough textbooks, you can "figure it out". I can almost guarantee you, that if these guys fail to get that 510k clearance, it will be for reasons that you've never even heard of, let alone analyzed.

richard.x.roe | 10/21/20 12:26PM :

Not the first time I am looking at 510k clearance. For example, I looked at Imaging3's application and FDA denial letter. Previously, I looked at a tiny microwave oven without a door that cooks you just below your skin so that you can't sweat anymore (that was approved, and I concurred with the approval).

I like looking at the wrong places. Then I don't go bankrupt when Lehman or Vanguard goes belly up.

I don't know what their reference device is. Do you?

Nanox' proposed multi-source device cannot do CT or tomo on a living thing, because it uses a detector that takes 4-6 seconds for each "projection" (that is, to do even one Arc "slice" scan without any z-movement, it takes about a minute, and a full-body scan will take hours). But who cares whether Nanox' proposed multi-source device works? All Nanox needs is an FDA approval, any FDA approval, and then it will get all the money it wants after the massive short squeeze.

Nanox does not need a functional tube. Nanox can buy "industrial" or "dental" tubes for $70 a piece from numerous Chinese vendors. But if you have any specs about their source that I don't have, please share.

It is not true that working with an OEM to design a machine around some source, be it novel or not, can get FDA clearance easily.

Nanox has not submitted a 510K application to the FDA, but to a third party.

I have seen quite a bit of data in Nanox archived publicly-available materials that are no longer easily available "publicly," and that you may have missed.

The people behind Nanox are not idiots. Underestimating them will be a costly mistake.

I find your conclusion that "none of these things are knowable to outsiders, no matter how knowledgeable" interesting. In my humble experience, that is simply not true.

I already know why they should fail 510K - but still working on whether they can corrupt that third party and get clearance anyway. I have seen it happen with other regulatory agencies.

How many frauds have you uncovered?

[quote=vaporfly]

Is this the first time you're looking at a company seeking 510k clearance (or PMA/BLA/NDA approval)? You're looking in the wrong places, yet somehow you think by digging ever deeper in the wrong places (and asking ever more detailed and esoteric questions), you'll find your answer.

What I mean is - what is your goal? What do you actually know about their application? Do you even know what their reference device is? Do you know what the indication of use is?

If you're trying to prove their device cannot be cleared because of some theoretical limitations, I think you're at a dead end. Most of the debate here is whether or not their proposed multi-source device can do CT or tomo, not whether or not a single-source device can do radiographs. If they have a functional tube and worked with an OEM to design a machine around it, they can get that clearance easily.

If you're trying to prove that they're submitting fake data to the FDA, that is simply impossible unless you have specific (and illegal) knowledge of their confidential application. It really doesn't matter how many fake videos they use on their website.

Ultimately, there are so many reasons why their applications may fail. Maybe they're just idiots and did not submit all the required information. Maybe their source isn't functional or can't be manufactured to spec. Maybe they will fail testing. Maybe they are a fraud and do submit fake data and get caught. None of these things are knowable to outsiders, no matter how knowledgeable. You seem to have this (in my opinion, very naive) view that with enough textbooks, you can "figure it out". I can almost guarantee you, that if these guys fail to get that 510k clearance, it will be for reasons that you've never even heard of, let alone analyzed.
[/quote]

Thread Enhancer | 10/21/20 01:13PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

The people behind Nanox are not idiots. Underestimating them will be a costly mistake.

[/quote]

Costly mistake for whom? I guess you? It just seems to me that you are spending way too much time trying to figure something out that is probably unknowable as if making the right decision is the only way you can make money in investing. You might be onto something with this being a criminal fraud as opposed to just bad judgement. Maybe you should become an investigative journalist rather than a hedge fund manager.

Not one of us is short or long Nanox. We are just discussing them because they are selling a bunch of BS and it is obvious to us since this is the line of work we are in.

vaporfly | 10/21/20 01:19PM :

RXR, this is clearly going nowhere so I'll be brief. You have very limited experience with FDA approvals/clearances, and you're entitled to your opinions, so believe what you will. I'll just focus on the basics.

1. No one knows exactly what their reference device is. It was a rhetorical question but you probably missed that. Nonetheless, it's pretty obvious what their initial indication of use is.
2. They will be applying with their own cold cathode tube. Please just stop with your crazy theories about how they're going to buy some Chinese dental xray tubes or partner with Varex. If you really believe that, this whole conversation is a giant waste of time (or rather, more of a waste than it's becoming).
3. For large, established OEMs that do this for a living, do you know what % of their 510k applications get cleared? It's not exactly always but pretty high. Getting 510k clearance (and please stop calling it approval) is not a very high bar.
4. Do you understand the real difference between the traditional 510k route vs the 3rd party route that Nanox is pursuing, and why they're doing that? It's not for the reasons you're imagining.

| :

richard.x.roe | 10/21/20 01:31PM :

That is ok. I like spending too much time, because I don't take shortcuts. Hedge-fund manager - you make me laugh!

[quote=Thread Enhancer]

Costly mistake for whom? I guess you? It just seems to me that you are spending way too much time trying to figure something out that is probably unknowable as if making the right decision is the only way you can make money in investing. You might be onto something with this being a criminal fraud as opposed to just bad judgement. Maybe you should become an investigative journalist rather than a hedge fund manager.

Not one of us is short or long Nanox. We are just discussing them because they are selling a bunch of BS and it is obvious to us since this is the line of work we are in.

[/quote]

vaporfly | 10/21/20 01:37PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

I already know why they should fail 510K - but still working on whether they can corrupt that third party and get clearance anyway. I have seen it happen with other regulatory agencies.

[/quote]

And sorry I can't resist, but you know nothing, Jon Snow

richard.x.roe | 10/21/20 01:43PM :

Very interesting - their own cold-cathode tube. And you have seen that tube, or at least have seen some technical data about it? Did you know that they have been trying to sell the IDEA of the cathode (not the tube!), after they tried to manufacture a cathode in 2013, to OEMs since at least 2015, right? Interestingly, Nanox tube performs like a low-quality Chinese hot-cathode tube of the same size (and looks almost the same). And, unfortunately, all the OEMs are familiar with SRI's work (so, therefore, no sale, not even of the idea).

Yes, but the products of those large OEMs (and even the small ones) do indeed meet the substantial equivalence criteria.

Yes, tell us the reasons for the third party! The FDA too busy with COVID stuff?

[quote=vaporfly]

RXR, this is clearly going nowhere so I'll be brief. You have very limited experience with FDA approvals/clearances, and you're entitled to your opinions, so believe what you will. I'll just focus on the basics.

1. No one knows exactly what their reference device is. It was a rhetorical question but you probably missed that. Nonetheless, it's pretty obvious what their initial indication of use is.
2. They will be applying with their own cold cathode tube. Please just stop with your crazy theories about how they're going to buy some Chinese dental xray tubes or partner with Varex. If you really believe that, this whole conversation is a giant waste of time (or rather, more of a waste than it's becoming).
3. For large, established OEMs that do this for a living, do you know what % of their 510k applications get cleared? It's not exactly always but pretty high. Getting 510k clearance (and please stop calling it approval) is not a very high bar.
4. Do you understand the real difference between the traditional 510k route vs the 3rd party route that Nanox is pursuing, and why they're doing that? It's not for the reasons you're imagining.
[/quote]

richard.x.roe | 10/21/20 01:48PM :

Here is a proof that the Arc 1.0 can be battery operated and made to emit a wide multi-spectrum of rays of 400-700nm wavelengths using just 12V.

Thread Enhancer | 10/21/20 01:55PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

That is ok. I like spending too much time, because I don't take shortcuts. Hedge-fund manager - you make me laugh!

[/quote]

That didn't last more than a minute in 1999 then after the crash? Or have you taken on someone else's moniker with "RXR"?

That's my point. You are not taking shortcuts and you are wasting time when you could be doing research that could help you make a decision that would have a much better chance of earning you money.

RoleCall | 10/21/20 02:08PM :

It does look really cool, I'll give them that

NYC | 10/21/20 02:45PM :

I like the “visible light” spectrum joke.

richard.x.roe | 10/21/20 02:58PM :

How do you know there is just one person behind RXR? Pray tell, what research could help me make a decision that would have a much better chance of earning me money? Or do you believe vaporfly when he tells you it is impossible and unwise, and maybe even illegal, to short a stock that is impossible to borrow?

[quote=Thread Enhancer]
That didn't last more than a minute in 1999 then after the crash? Or have you taken on someone else's moniker with "RXR"?

That's my point. You are not taking shortcuts and you are wasting time when you could be doing research that could help you make a decision that would have a much better chance of earning you money.
[/quote]

richard.x.roe | 10/21/20 03:02PM :

They brag that they paid a famous Israeli designer to design it.

[quote=RoleCall]
It does look really cool, I'll give them that
[/quote]

Thread Enhancer | 10/21/20 05:00PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

Pray tell, what research could help me make a decision that would have a much better chance of earning me money?
[/quote]

Research that leads you to an actionable conclusion? You seem to have been spinning your wheels for weeks or months and you keep arguing both sides of the trade. But I get it. You were horribly burned by TSLA. You don't want to make that mistake again.

richard.x.roe | 10/21/20 05:42PM :

Well, as I said, leave that to the professional investors. My research does lead to an actionable conclusion, despite that it does not appear so. In fact, some investors' whole pitch is that they argue both sides. Also, would you be surprised, for example, that Fidelity (a reputable fund manager, no?) piled up on a short squeeze in an obvious fraud and made quite a few bucks by buying (after the equivalent of an FDA approval for a single-source device was announced) and selling a few days later?

So, what makes you think I was "burned" by TSLA? There are various types of frauds, and some take just a bit longer to collapse. Dedicated shorts tend to be quite patient and resourceful, despite what vaporfly might lead you to believe. I often mention one fraud that took over 50 years of being a publicly-traded company to file for Chapter 11, providing profitable opportunities for generations of people who waste their time looking into irrelevant, useless, and meaningless stuff.

[quote=Thread Enhancer]
Research that leads you to an actionable conclusion? You seem to have been spinning your wheels for weeks or months and you keep arguing both sides of the trade. But I get it. You were horribly burned by TSLA. You don't want to make that mistake again.
[/quote]

vaporfly | 10/21/20 05:51PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

Very interesting - their own cold-cathode tube. And you have seen that tube, or at least have seen some technical data about it? Did you know that they have been trying to sell the IDEA of the cathode (not the tube!), after they tried to manufacture a cathode in 2013, to OEMs since at least 2015, right? Interestingly, Nanox tube performs like a low-quality Chinese hot-cathode tube of the same size (and looks almost the same). And, unfortunately, all the OEMs are familiar with SRI's work (so, therefore, no sale, not even of the idea).
[/quote]

Yes, they are submitting an application based on their own cold-cathode tube. I'm not saying it works well, or that it even works at all. But that is what they're basing their application on. I don't know any more about the specs of their tube any better than the good folks here, because frankly they've published no data, and we're all just trying to decipher the same web images here.

But when you started yapping about how Nanox should partner with Varex on their cold cathode technology, I realized you're just spinning fairy tales from a basement. I talk to guys at Varex. I talk to guys at the OEMs. I don't need you to tell me that they all think Nanox is a joke. But one day you talk about how they can easily license out their cold cathode to someone else, and the next day you talk about how no one cares about their technology? Can you just pick a story and stick with it? And now you've got a theory that they're actually going to submit an application based on off-the-shelf dental xray tubes? Good lord. You're like the opposite of Occam's razor. You find the craziest and nonsensical conspiracy theories and think you've uncovered something no one else has seen before.

Let me just state the obvious to you. These guys may not get past the FDA because it's not clear they have anything that's even remotely commercially ready. But as for their application, they are absolutely pushing their cold cathode, no matter how crappy it is, because that is the only reason why their company has any value. If they lie to everyone and actually try to get something cleared using conventional tubes, you don't think the FDA would have an issue with a press release falsely claiming that a new cold cathode is ready to go? It would take the FDA (and the SEC) about 5 seconds to kibosh that. I know these guys are shady, but what you're proposing is just bush league. They may be crooks, but they aren't dumb middle schoolers with an overactive imagination.

vaporfly | 10/21/20 06:49PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]
So, what makes you think I was "burned" by TSLA? There are various types of frauds, and some take just a bit longer to collapse. Dedicated shorts tend to be quite patient and resourceful, despite what vaporfly might lead you to believe. I often mention one fraud that took over 50 years of being a publicly-traded company to file for Chapter 11, providing profitable opportunities for generations of people who waste their time looking into irrelevant, useless, and meaningless stuff.
[/quote]

Of course short sellers are patient and resourceful. We short a lot of stocks, and we have the utmost respect for folks that specialize in shorts for a living. Some frauds can take a long time to uncover. It takes a special kind of person to have the tenacity to pursue a fraud to the end. The funny thing is, I think most people on this board (including myself) agree with you that Nanox is a fraud. At least I assume that's your position now.

But at the same time, good short sellers know their own limits. They understand what they know, what they don't know, and what's unknowable. You are not that, my friend. As for your Lehman reference - no need to speak in cryptics. What are you trying to say? That Lehman sustained a fraud for 50 years before some smart short seller figured it out? I'm sorry but that's not what happened. I know the fund (Greenlight) that first publicly announced that they were short Lehman in 2008, but they were hardly alone. The thesis was simple - Lehman made some bad loans during the housing boom of the mid-2000's, used bad marks to cover it up, but ran out of liquidity when everyone got nervous in 2008 and pulled their credit lines. The whole Street expected Lehman to fail, just as Bear failed before them. In fact, I still remember the week before Bear failed, I had friends at funds that "primed" with Bear, desperately trying to pull their money out. The fund I worked at stopped trading with Bear that Wednesday, as did almost everyone else. Bear failed that Friday. It was basically a run on the bank. But anyway, I'm getting sidetracked. There are examples of "long cons" that defraud people for a long time, fooling almost everyone except the tenacious few. But Lehman and Nanox are not that. Many people bet on Lehman to fail, and many people are shorting Nanox today.

richard.x.roe | 10/21/20 06:49PM :

How do you know they are submitting the application based on their own cold-cathode tube? The investor presentation says: "Submitted a 510 (K) application in January 2020 relating to a single digital X ray source version of the Nanox.ARC" It does not say it has a cold cathode. It does not say it is their own.

I know enough of the specs they have "published" that the device (basically, the tube) tested in the "Performance test" video fails FDA's requirements for beam quality.

Knowing that Nanox is a joke does not prevent partnering. GM knows that Nikola is a joke, and partnered nevertheless. Both stocks went up on the announcement. Many frauds love to partner, and reputable companies like Intel, Dell, Samsung, Apple, etc love to partner with frauds as well, either for free money or to play mindgames and screw up with the competition. I have seen it many, many times over the years. Guess what will happen to both Varex and Nanox stocks, if they announce a partnership? You think Cantor, Oppenheimer, and CIBC are not talking to Varex about it as we speak?

I am now told by others that the company has value because of its business model, even if the cold cathode does not work out or some reason.

[quote=vaporfly]
Yes, they are submitting an application based on their own cold-cathode tube. I'm not saying it works well, or that it even works at all. But that is what they're basing their application on. I don't know any more about the specs of their tube any better than the good folks here, because frankly they've published no data, and we're all just trying to decipher the same web images here.

But when you started yapping about how Nanox should partner with Varex on their cold cathode technology, I realized you're just spinning fairy tales from a basement. I talk to guys at Varex. I talk to guys at the OEMs. I don't need you to tell me that they all think Nanox is a joke. But one day you talk about how they can easily license out their cold cathode to someone else, and the next day you talk about how no one cares about their technology? Can you just pick a story and stick with it? And now you've got a theory that they're actually going to submit an application based on off-the-shelf dental xray tubes? Good lord. You're like the opposite of Occam's razor. You find the craziest and nonsensical conspiracy theories and think you've uncovered something no one else has seen before.

Let me just state the obvious to you. These guys may not get past the FDA because it's not clear they have anything that's even remotely commercially ready. But as for their application, they are absolutely pushing their cold cathode, no matter how crappy it is, because that is the only reason why their company has any value. If they lie to everyone and actually try to get something cleared using conventional tubes, you don't think the FDA would have an issue with a press release falsely claiming that a new cold cathode is ready to go? It would take the FDA (and the SEC) about 5 seconds to kibosh that. I know these guys are shady, but what you're proposing is just bush league. They may be crooks, but they aren't dumb middle schoolers with an overactive imagination.
[/quote]

vaporfly | 10/21/20 06:58PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

How do you know they are submitting the application based on their own cold-cathode tube? The investor presentation says: "Submitted a 510 (K) application in January 2020 relating to a single digital X ray source version of the Nanox.ARC" It does not say it has a cold cathode. It does not say it is their own.

I know enough of the specs they have "published" that the device (basically, the tube) tested in the "Performance test" video fails FDA's requirements for beam quality.

Knowing that Nanox is a joke does not prevent partnering. GM knows that Nikola is a joke, and partnered nevertheless. Both stocks went up on the announcement. Many frauds love to partner, and reputable companies like Intel, Dell, Samsung, Apple, etc love to partner with frauds as well, either for free money or to play mindgames and screw up with the competition. I have seen it many, many times over the years. Guess what will happen to both Varex and Nanox stocks, if they announce a partnership? You think Cantor, Oppenheimer, and CIBC are not talking to Varex about it as we speak?

I am now told by others that the company has value because of its business model, even if the cold cathode does not work out or some reason.
[/quote]

It's funny how I've never posted in stock chat boards to avoid wasting time, but here I am, spamming a radiologist board and not following my own advice.

But for the sake of everyone else here. No, Varex and all of the OEMs I've talked to want nothing to do with Nanox. Full stop. RXR - you can believe whatever you want and spin whatever you want.

And please don't bring Cantor, Opco and CIBC into this. Do you even know what they do for a living? You think they do biz dev for companies they cover? And yes, I do talk to them too (as other funds would too). I'm too polite to tell them their NNOX initiations were garbage, but they know how the game works better than anyone, so I don't need to state the obvious. And lord no, they are not talking to Varex on behalf of Nanox. That is not their job. You clearly have no idea how any of this stuff works. Good luck to you.

richard.x.roe | 10/21/20 07:01PM :

I am saying that if Lehman was your counter party, you got screwed (at least temporarily), even if you pretended to be smart or even a smart short-seller. I would not be too sure about Vanguard either, now that everybody is reaching for yield where they should not (and the thing is not even publicly traded, so there won't be much advanced warning)

[quote=vaporfly]

But at the same time, good short sellers know their own limits. They understand what they know, what they don't know, and what's unknowable. You are not that, my friend. As for your Lehman reference - no need to speak in cryptics. What are you trying to say? That Lehman sustained a fraud for 50 years before some smart short seller figured it out? I'm sorry but that's not what happened. I know the fund (Greenlight) that first publicly announced that they were short Lehman in 2008, but they were hardly alone. The thesis was simple - Lehman made some bad loans during the housing boom of the mid-2000's, used bad marks to cover it up, but ran out of liquidity when everyone got nervous in 2008 and pulled their credit lines. The whole Street expected Lehman to fail, just as Bear failed before them. In fact, I still remember the week before Bear failed, I had friends at funds that "primed" with Bear, desperately trying to pull their money out. The fund I worked at stopped trading with Bear that Wednesday, as did almost everyone else. Bear failed that Friday. It was basically a run on the bank. But anyway, I'm getting sidetracked. There are examples of "long cons" that defraud people for a long time, fooling almost everyone except the tenacious few. But Lehman and Nanox are not that. Many people bet on Lehman to fail, and many people are shorting Nanox today.
[/quote]

richard.x.roe | 10/21/20 07:07PM :

Yes, it is addictive. Dan Loeb (Third Point) was the king of the message boards in my youth - he was known as Mr. Pink.

Of course the underwriters do biz dev for companies they IPO and cover, if it brings more fees down the road.

[quote=vaporfly]

It's funny how I've never posted in stock chat boards to avoid wasting time, but here I am, spamming a radiologist board and not following my own advice.

But for the sake of everyone else here. No, Varex and all of the OEMs I've talked to want nothing to do with Nanox. Full stop. RXR - you can believe whatever you want and spin whatever you want.

And please don't bring Cantor, Opco and CIBC into this. Do you even know what they do for a living? You think they do biz dev for companies they cover? And yes, I do talk to them too (as other funds would too). I'm too polite to tell them their NNOX initiations were garbage, but they know how the game works better than anyone, so I don't need to state the obvious. And lord no, they are not talking to Varex on behalf of Nanox. That is not their job. You clearly have no idea how any of this stuff works. Good luck to you.
[/quote]

Thread Enhancer | 10/21/20 08:03PM :

One thing I know for sure after reading this. I might consider giving some money to VF to invest for me. RXR? Hahahahahahahaha.

Thread Enhancer | 10/21/20 08:17PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

So, what makes you think I was "burned" by TSLA? There are various types of frauds, and some take just a bit longer to collapse. Dedicated shorts tend to be quite patient and resourceful, despite what vaporfly might lead you to believe. I often mention one fraud that took over 50 years of being a publicly-traded company to file for Chapter 11, providing profitable opportunities for generations of people who waste their time looking into irrelevant, useless, and meaningless stuff.

[/quote]

Are you saying that because your thesis will be proved correct in 50+ years that this will allow you to make money for you and/or your clients? I don't' know anyone that is willing to lose over and over for decades just to be proven correct at some unknown time. Good luck to you and your clients.

I do have one question. Who are you RXR? Not Rex Dwyer? I know quite a few very successful "investment professionals". I don't know one that has spent time on online message boards. If you are a real pro why not share your business with us so we can give you some of our money to invest? Isn't that how one becomes successful in the business?

richard.x.roe | 10/22/20 07:24AM :

I am saying that frauds are a special asset class that not many people are familiar with or bother with (because it is typically a small one). While a fraud can last 50 years, you don't have to wait till the end to make (or lose) money.

Maybe I am simply a defendant in legal proceedings whose true name is unknown? Or maybe we are retired investment professionals having fun? Gosh, I may even be Mr. Hitoshi Masuya, the investment tycoon behind Techgate Investment, the true founder of Nanox carve-out, but now demoted as a "manager" of Japan laboratories (that is, a room that belongs to Tokyo University, which I can visit from time to time, being an alumnus). Hard to tell, really.

[quote=Thread Enhancer]
Are you saying that because your thesis will be proved correct in 50+ years that this will allow you to make money for you and/or your clients? I don't' know anyone that is willing to lose over and over for decades just to be proven correct at some unknown time. Good luck to you and your clients.

I do have one question. Who are you RXR? Not Rex Dwyer? I know quite a few very successful "investment professionals". I don't know one that has spent time on online message boards. If you are a real pro why not share your business with us so we can give you some of our money to invest? Isn't that how one becomes successful in the business?
[/quote]

Thread Enhancer | 10/22/20 08:25AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

I am saying that frauds are a special asset class that not many people are familiar with or bother with (because it is typically a small one). While a fraud can last 50 years, you don't have to wait till the end to make (or lose) money.

Maybe I am simply a defendant in legal proceedings whose true name is unknown? Or maybe we are retired investment professionals having fun? Gosh, I may even be Mr. Hitoshi Masuya, the investment tycoon behind Techgate Investment, the true founder of Nanox carve-out, but now demoted as a "manager" of Japan laboratories (that is, a room that belongs to Tokyo University, which I can visit from time to time, being an alumnus). Hard to tell, really.

[/quote]

Thanks for humoring me. It is all in good fun.

I guess what I am noticing during your machinations is that you are having a hard time making money with your fraud theses. Maybe above in bold is because it's very hard to make money there? In fact it sounds like despite being proven correct in the end, you might actually lose more than you make, especially counting opportunity cost. I applaud your tenacity. Like I said earlier you would make a great investigative journalist.

I do wish I could give you more ammunition on the source fraud. Those of us here realize it's the post source side that will make the Arc unworkable for what they claim it can do, especially at the cost they are proclaiming. We also know it is a big risk to try and short the stock just because it will never work.

richard.x.roe | 10/22/20 08:45AM :

In case anyone is wondering, the manufacturer of the phantom used for Image A/B recommends 48kV, 5mAs for common equipment. Yup, synthetic bone (epoxy resin).

richard.x.roe | 10/22/20 09:04AM :

While I still don't know the reference device, there is evidence that they were thinking about, and may have actually tried, this one: https://www.accessdata.fd...pdf2/K021016.pdf . I believe the AMX series is the only mobile system that exceeded 10,000 units sold worldwide, which matches perfectly with Nanox stated goal to deploy 15,000 units globally by 2024 year end.

[quote=vaporfly]
Do you even know what their reference device is?
[/quote]

vaporfly | 10/22/20 09:08AM :

TE - if you want to see a fascinating (and authentic) story about short sellers being proven right, yet still lose, check out the story of Wirecard. Below is an article about it.

https://www.afr.com/chant...failed-20200720-p55dqc

If you want to follow another potential one in real-time, check out GSX, which Hempton is probably also short (along with many other prominent short sellers). He may have referenced it in his Jun-2020 letter (which you can find on his website), where he mentions "crappy Chinese companies claiming massive businesses in China via fake accounts."

RXR - I apologize that my tone was annoyed last night. I enjoy productive discussions and don't have much patience to decipher code. I don't care to know your identity and I don't believe it's right to dox people anyway. You are judged entirely based on what you post here (and on SA), so I suggest the more sense you make, the less time we'll all waste. So what is your latest angle? My partner reached out to Masuya a few weeks ago when we still cared about NNOX stock (ie. we were short), but he didn't respond. I thought it was very strange that Nanox's prospectus included their VP of HR as an Executive Officer in the prospectus, but not their head guy in Japan, which supposedly invented the whole thing. But I didn't have a good hypothesis why. I had a pet theory that maybe Masuya didn't want legal exposure as a named officer of a fraudulent company, but he was happy to participate on the upside via undisclosed share holdings (unlike most other IPOs, Nanox has a very large % of undisclosed shares; you don't need to disclose holdings if you are not a named officer). In any case, I had no way to prove any of this, so I just ignored/dropped it. Have you uncovered anything here?

Thread Enhancer | 10/22/20 09:37AM :

Thanks VF. I will check it out. I am so sure Nanox will fail in their mission that I considered shorting a stock for the first time. I never did have the guts to do it though. I did tell a friend about Nanox and my timing was perfect. He took a short position the day before the Citron report came out. I'll be visiting him in the wine country this evening and we will enjoy a nice meal and a few great bottles with the profits...

richard.x.roe | 10/22/20 09:41AM :

Nothing that will move the needle. But I would love to find the addresses of their "Japan Laboratories" they gave to the underwriters ( https://www.nanox.vision/our-leadership )

[quote=vaporfly]
Have you uncovered anything [re Masuya]?
[/quote]

n.rad | 10/25/20 01:30PM :

TMF is continuing the pump. Another new article:

https://www.fool.com/inve...gs-for-nano-xs-future/

fw | 10/25/20 02:12PM :

[quote=n.rad]

TMF is continuing the pump. Another new article:

https://www.fool.com/inve...gs-for-nano-xs-future/
[/quote]

Love the byline:

'The only thing left to prove is that its X-ray technology actually works.'

Lol.

NYC | 10/25/20 03:08PM :

Kind of interesting how this latest article exclusively mentions x-ray... No mention of CT or even tomography.

DoctorDalai | 10/25/20 03:18PM :

P.T. Barnum comes to mind.

Thread Enhancer | 10/25/20 04:51PM :

[quote=n.rad]

TMF is continuing the pump. Another new article:

https://www.fool.com/inve...gs-for-nano-xs-future/
[/quote]

To be somewhat fair and not that deserve it but this did come out the day before.

https://www.fool.com/premium/coverage/investing/2020/10/24/3-red-flags-for-nano-xs-future/

ThePACSman | 10/26/20 12:19AM :

Vegas odds are currently 7:1 that, due to the high interest in the product, during the RSNA demo the Internet crashes and they aren't able to complete the demo. It will be couched as due to "circumstances beyond our control" or "technical difficulties", so you'll just have to trust them as I know you do....

Place you bets now while the betting is good.

RoleCall | 10/26/20 05:09AM :

The TMF article talks about the technology as if all their claims are true.

fw | 10/26/20 05:53AM :

[quote=RoleCall]
The TMF article talks about the technology as if all their claims are true.
[/quote]

It is humorous that people are waiting for them to show us that they can take an x-ray.

richard.x.roe | 10/26/20 08:52AM :

I don't think so. I think the pre-recorded video will stream just fine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OQJk9DhHgM

You can even make it more interactive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-VCzLiyFxc

For example, they faked their "raw" performance video by simply displaying different images every 2 seconds on the screen (the images were taken manually over a period of probably about half an hour), simulating "real-time" projections at 8 different angles on the Arc, and recording them with a smart phone, with the resulting footage superimposed in-picture later.

[quote=ThePACSman]
Vegas odds are currently 7:1 that, due to the high interest in the product, during the RSNA demo the Internet crashes and they aren't able to complete the demo.
[/quote]

Thread Enhancer | 10/26/20 09:43AM :

RXR, now that you have come down hard on the fraud thesis side and we know what you are up to, your posts on SA are fun to read. I was prepared to give them the ability to take simple films with their source. I am now beginning to believe that that this is a criminal fraud.

richard.x.roe | 10/26/20 04:42PM :

The other Nano-X:

https://physicsworld.com/...m-radiotherapy-system/

They even have a trial: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04488224

DoctorDalai | 10/26/20 05:37PM :

Totally different company, different people, machine, etc.

richard.x.roe | 10/26/20 05:47PM :

According to the investor presentation slides, Nanox is using this Dr. Schultz as an advisor for its 510K submission.

He was forced to resign from the FDA in 2009 after whistleblowers complained to Congress that he improperly intervened to approve useless and/or dangerous devices:

https://www.odtmag.com/is...igns-amid-controversy/
http://www.fdareview.com/samples/ferdic.pdf

I remember briefly looking at the heavily-shorted maker of one of these devices, Cyberonics, but at that time I was too busy with other things...

As I said, Nanox people should not be underestimated. If there is a corruptible person somewhere, they will find that person.

| :

Thread Enhancer | 10/26/20 06:31PM :

I love this stuff. It gets so fun when the fraud is close to being truly exposed. I might have mentioned it before but there was a similar occurrence in the world of wine when the store Premier Cru was running a Ponzi scheme selling wine they did not have contracts for. There were so many members of the wine message boards that defended them. It got really fun when the proprietor John Fox got burned by his high priced escort.

n.rad | 10/27/20 02:40PM :

You should check out the documentary [i]Sour Grapes[/i] on Netflix if you haven't already seen it.

primo | 10/28/20 11:50AM :

I just watched this on Netflix cuz you got me curious.

Thread Enhancer | 10/28/20 12:02PM :

I've seen it and lived it on the periphery. Many of my friends have tasted with Rudy. We knew something was up. Had lunch a wine lunch with Bill Koch last summer. He was the perfect person to go after him.

Look up John Fox and Premier Cru and see the sordid details. There are many physicians, including radiologists, that are on the list of creditors in the bankruptcy filing, including myself. Luckily it was a small amount. I stopped buying from them early enough to avoid big losses.

n.rad | 10/29/20 05:57AM :

TMF is doing their best. Latest article:

https://www.fool.com/inve...ng-about-nano-x-stock/

Nice justification for the volatility here:

“This sort of volatility is common when you invest in rule-breakers that are disrupting the status quo. We saw it with Amazon back in the day, and Tesla more recently.”

n.rad | 10/29/20 06:06AM :

...you know, because nnox has a lot in common with Amazon and Tesla.

richard.x.roe | 10/29/20 07:26AM :

If you did not know:

The typical [X-ray] technology requires a massive machine, because it has to manufacture a lot of heat (up to 2,000 degrees celsius), and then cool itself down. The Nano-X device doesn't need any of that. Using nanotechnology, Nano-X has developed a silicon chip that distributes this task of creating electrons across 100 million digitally controlled nanocones. That's what makes this X-ray a lot smaller, and a lot cheaper to manufacture and maintain.

Cool (like a Nanox anode)! And it can even create electrons (just like God). And cheap.

n.rad | 10/29/20 10:46AM :

It seems like there should be some consumer protection for stuff like this.

The writer clearly has no idea what he’s talking about. In my mind TMF and others pushing a stock based on false or misleading info when they stand to benefit from the price increasing isn’t that different than Listerine running ads saying it would prevent colds, Vibram saying it’s shoes prevent injuries, or Snapchat implying that images disappeared forever…

At least there should be some conflict of interest statement similar to what we have before any medical presentations or a disclaimer stating the author lacks a basic understanding of medicine, physics, medical imaging etc.

n.rad | 11/02/20 08:36AM :

New SA article

https://seekingalpha.com/...gy-outdated-technology

Thread Enhancer | 11/02/20 09:39AM :

There is some good stuff there but RXR is a lot more on top of it than this guy. He does lose some credibility with me for questioning how many people will show to RSNA in Chicago.

n.rad | 11/02/20 10:20AM :

Yeah, I think there are much stronger arguments against the company but it’s funny that people are spotting issues from nearly every angle.

Thread Enhancer | 11/02/20 10:22AM :

That's what I am taking from the article. Even sources like SA and MF are coming out with commentary that is not very flattering. It's amazing to me how few comments there are now on each site.

zeuses | 11/02/20 06:19PM :

"New SA article

https://seekingalpha.com/...gy-outdated-technology"

The Yahoos on the nnox board view the SA article as another "short" attack.
All criticism of NNOX is due to "the Shorts" Unbelievable.

n.rad | 11/05/20 05:17AM :

Did anybody watch the Social Dilemma or listen to the Rogan podcast with Tristan Harris?

Basically there are billions of fake foreign accts on social media trying to divide and radicalize Americans.

I’m starting to think the same thing is occurring in the equities world. There are too many people who are claiming to be healthcare providers who are aggressively promoting this stock. Presumably to extract investments from the uninformed.

I remember getting the same feeling with Luckin Coffee (LK) the “Chinese Starbucks” which was found to be faking financial information and delisted. There were so many aggressive supporters who seemingly had real info mixed in with the uninformed “rocket to the moon” crowd.

zeuses | 11/05/20 07:22AM :

"I’m starting to think the same thing is occurring in the equities world. There are too many people who are claiming to be healthcare providers who are aggressively promoting this stock. Presumably to extract investments from the uninformed."

will you either post these messages or a link to them?

zeuses | 11/05/20 07:48AM :

NNOX claims they're going to present at three conferences this month.
Should be interesting.

https://finance.yahoo.com...ovember-133600954.html

richard.x.roe | 11/05/20 07:53AM :

This is an illustration found in the first-ever official press release by Nanox (dated Nov 19, 2019). Can you spot what's wrong in the "From" and the "To" sections?

zeuses | 11/05/20 08:03AM :

I'm not questioning the validity of your message but I don't see it.
Will you point it out?

n.rad | 11/05/20 08:53AM :

StockTwits. The screen name Escapeoutdoors is the most recent example. Several on Twitter as well.

n.rad | 11/05/20 09:22AM :

This Daniel Schultz guy needs to be investigated. He has helped multiple devices get cleared despite strong scientific objection that resulted in injury and death. I found 3 companies with a 10 second internet search. Cyberonics which killed dozens of patients before being pulled. TMJI implants and ReGen Biologics as well.

He seems like exactly who you would go to if you wanted to get something useless approved.

n.rad | 11/06/20 04:55AM :

https://www.nytimes.com/2...da-staff-objected.html

The device in this article killed 12 people.

“ But Dr. Daniel G. Schultz, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the agency, kept moving the application along and eventually decided to approve it, the report said.

That approval did follow the backing of a divided F.D.A. advisory committee. Still, the Senate committee, which for two years has been investigating the decision-making processes at the F.D.A., could find no previous instance in which the director of the center had approved a device in the face of unanimous opposition from staff scientists and administrators beneath him, the report said.”

Suprasellar Cistern | 11/06/20 06:24AM :

Imagine delivering the Nanox pitch in 30 seconds to a potential investor you encounter on the street: “We have this idea for a new imaging device but we have no marketable product and our plans defy the laws of physics. How much of the company do you want to invest in?” The investor would be like, “Uhh, I think my Uber is here”

Thread Enhancer | 11/06/20 12:56PM :

"it's in a vacuum" That suspends physics from what I am told.

richard.x.roe | 11/10/20 12:50PM :

Has anyone tried to access Nanox' webpage at RSNA 2020? Anything of note? I have not registered yet.

Thread Enhancer | 11/10/20 04:38PM :

Other than the listing for the half hour time slot at the end of the day on the 2nd I see no mention of Nanox. Vendors do not seem to have specific pages to access.

You can express interest in meeting vendor representatives so I have just done that with Nanox

zeuses | 11/12/20 07:57AM :

NANOX is supposed to give a presentation 9am ET this morning.
Stock is trending down not up. Go figure.
Event: Berenberg US CEO Conference 2020
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2020
Time: 9:00 AM ET

richard.x.roe | 11/12/20 09:09AM :

It was a fireside chat with the CEO, not a presentation. I would love to hear what he chatted about.

ThePACSman | 11/13/20 03:29AM :

I am showing Nanox registered at the RSNA as Nano-X Imaging Ltd with a demo scheduled (as of now) for for 5-5:30 Weds 12/2. Hope that helps. I'll see what else I can dig up.

PACSMan

dergon | 11/13/20 06:07AM :

[quote=n.rad]

TMF is doing their best. Latest article:

https://www.fool.com/inve...ng-about-nano-x-stock/

[/quote]
It is amazing how far The Motley Fool has fallen over the last decade.

From their origin as providing a guide for individual investors finding growth/value opportunities in equities ...

... to hawking snake oil in a medicine show.

zeuses | 11/13/20 06:19AM :

I agree it appears TMF has become a company interested in hawking it's products. I get at least two or three emails/day advertising their different services. I believe the author of the latest NANOX article should've gone into much more detail re: the negative press and multiple lawsuits instead of the milt toast -
". . . Investors should keep up with Nano-X's demon shorts and class action cronies, and make sure that the company can produce a machine that actually works before placing their trust and dollars in the stock. If you think X-rays are boring, you might be in for a surprise."

OTOH, there just might e something there. The RSNA presentation should be interesting.

delawarerad | 11/13/20 08:32AM :

[quote=ThePACSman]

I am showing Nanox registered at the RSNA as Nano-X Imaging Ltd with a demo scheduled (as of now) for for 5-5:30 Weds 12/2. Hope that helps. I'll see what else I can dig up.

PACSMan
[/quote]

Thanks Mike. Do you have a link to the demo/presentation?

ThePACSman | 11/13/20 05:19PM :

You have to be registered for RSNA 2020 and logged on to see it. No link has been provided as yet but as soon as it is I'll post it.

Make it a great weekend!

Mike

zeuses | 11/13/20 05:21PM :

Looking forward to it.
Thanks

Thread Enhancer | 11/13/20 06:29PM :

I have had no response to my request to connect with a rep from Nanox on the RSNA 2020 site.

n.rad | 11/14/20 07:22AM :

So surprising. They are not pursuing connecting with potential customers of the device. Maybe the only real customers are those who buy the stock.

Thread Enhancer | 11/14/20 07:55AM :

Right? There is a networking platform that I used to reach out. Nothing. I do have dozens of other reps sending me invites to connect.

zeuses | 11/14/20 12:13PM :

It appears NANOX removed the live links links to the presentations on the 17th & 19th.
https://investors.nanox.vision/events-presentations/events

Thread Enhancer | 11/14/20 12:36PM :

Anyone read the “losses call” transcript?

https://www.fool.com/premium/coverage/earnings/call-transcripts/2020/11/09/nano-x-imaging-ltd-nnox-q3-2020-earnings-call-tran/

n.rad | 11/14/20 01:20PM :

I wonder if those are just transcription errors or if their answers in the Q&A portion were really that wishy-washy and nonsensical.

zeuses | 11/14/20 01:31PM :

W/O more information and based on the hx of nnox I'm going w/
wishy-washy and nonsensical.

| :

Thread Enhancer | 11/14/20 01:33PM :

I would think if they gave real answers it would come through fine in transcription. The “investment professionals” don’t seem to realize the questions were not answered sufficiently. If true question and answer is allowed at RSNA it could go very badly for Nano-X.

zeuses | 11/14/20 01:36PM :

Good points - We may not have to wait 'til RSNA they're supposed tp present at the Jefferies Virtual London Healthcare Conference on Nov 17th.

richard.x.roe | 11/16/20 09:58AM :

The actual call is available as an mp3 file: https://investors.nanox.vision/static-files/788f4056-674d-42b7-9d99-53606cfe197b
What, specifically, did you find non-sensical in the Q&A?

richard.x.roe | 11/16/20 10:19AM :

Anyone here know the Xinray story - the inventors of the Nanox.Arc mini (the less-ambitious versions of Nanox.Arc)?

Did you attend/remember this presentation: http://archive.rsna.org/2013/13016309.html ?

It is a JV of Siemens and Xintek (a bunch of professors from UNC doing nanotech), and I did come across it on my own but vaporfly reminded me about it, too. These guys were publishing papers and even doing human studies on "stationary" tomosynthesis for chest, mamography, IGRT, etc - multiple CNT cathodes or tubes covering say 30 degrees and a fast flat detector - they were much less ambitious (and knew that a 510K approval is impossible) and cost was never discussed. Looks like they finally gave up last year. The only commercial device ever coming out was a small CNT tube used for awhile in a portable/mobile x-ray ( https://www.carestream.com/en/us/medical/products/radiography/dr-systems/carestream-drx-revolution-nano-mobile-x-ray-system , made by publicly-traded Micro-X in Australia - the tube is no longer used)

Thread Enhancer | 11/16/20 10:23AM :

Those obscure scientific sessions are very lightly attended at RSNA. I would be amazed if anyone here saw that. We are too busy learning about things that will actually help us in our day to day work.

richard.x.roe | 11/17/20 10:48AM :

Looking at NNOX presentation again... Does this look like contrast-enhanced CT? Or could it be plain CT? Does the abbreviation CER/CT for the "Study Description" mean anything to you?

Please ignore all the Nanox/MacBook references in the picture...

Thread Enhancer | 11/17/20 11:38AM :

Pre and post contrast images in there.

What is that supposed to show? Clearly the Arc can't perform imaging like that.

richard.x.roe | 11/17/20 12:08PM :

Thanks! This is in the slide that is supposed to show what radiologists will see in front of them after an Arc scan has been stored in the cloud ("A proprietary software platform designed to streamline the radiology diagnostics services and provide billing control").

I am just trying to figure out where they stole this image from (I could not find it on the image stock sites). The labeling on the images (very hard to read, intentionally) already says that the modality is CT (that is, cannot be Arc).

So does the CER in the study description (CER/CT) mean "contrast enhanced reconstruction?"

Edited: I first wrote "contrast enhanced ratio"

n.rad | 11/17/20 12:38PM :

I would guess CE would stand for “contrast enhanced.” R could be reconstruction but usually you would say that if there were coronal and sagittal reconstruction. This just shows axial images.

It would be pretty distracting to read off of that software with that green line down the middle of the images. This interface looks pretty basic and may just be an art project but it’s missing some important features like some sort of history panel to show prior imaging.

DoctorDalai | 11/17/20 04:47PM :

All they are showing is their VERY limited viewing software. The CT is absolutely NOT from any of their machines. It is a paste-up designed to appeal to those who have absolutely no idea about anything related to Radiology.

richard.x.roe | 11/17/20 06:40PM :

On a separate note, Nanox claims in their prospectus that "tomosynthesis is an imaging technique widely used for early detection."

I know that the FDA approved breast tomosynthesis as a screening tool in 2011, for example, but only in conjunction with a 2D image, that is, it cannot be used by itself as the sole screening tool.

Are you aware of any situation where tomosynthesis can be used as a sole/primary screening tool today?

ar123 | 11/17/20 08:33PM :

What a bunch of con artists. If they get any footing whatsoever, it's going to be a total s*itshow.

Thread Enhancer | 11/17/20 08:47PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

On a separate note, Nanox claims in their prospectus that "tomosynthesis is an imaging technique widely used for early detection."

I know that the FDA approved breast tomosynthesis as a screening tool in 2011, for example, but only in conjunction with a 2D image, that is, it cannot be used by itself as the sole screening tool.

Are you aware of any situation where tomosynthesis can be used as a sole/primary screening tool today?
[/quote]
A 2D image can be recreated from the tomo data so in a sense it can be a sole screening tool. However, the "tomosynthsesis" Nanox can offer with the Arc is light years away from the breast tomosynthesis that is currently used in breast cancer screening practice.

n.rad | 11/18/20 06:20AM :

It’s funny how that picture includes a MacBook logo. I guess they will have a different setup for the mammography readers. I wonder if they even know what MQSA is at this point.

DoctorDalai | 11/18/20 06:53AM :

Richard.X, trust those of us who have been doing this a long time...This device, and the environment created around it, cannot do what is being touted.

I have no vested interest in the thing working or not. Frankly, having done some Global Health work over the years, I would be thrilled if it was everything that Nanox says it is. But it very clearly [i]isn't[/i].

n.rad | 11/18/20 10:18AM :

One thing I’m trying to figure out is are they even allowed to demonstrate “3D” at RSNA without violating FDA rules?

I briefly read some of the guidelines and it looks like the entire device would have to be pending approval/clearance to do a demonstration.

https://www.mddionline.co...s-according-fda-policy

They don’t have much time remaining and I saw an excerpt somewhere from one of the investor conferences that they may not even submit the application for the Arc until next year.

richard.x.roe | 11/18/20 10:51AM :

FDA regulations and RSNA 2020 rules prohibit them from demonstrating a “3D” device at RSNA 2020, because they have not submitted and will not submit for approval the multi-source device by the time of the presentation (December 2). But I am not a member, so maybe RSNA won't listen to me, and Nanox could care less about FDA (they always knew they cannot get anything approved under 510k). RSNA will listen to a member, though. The person to contact is John.Jaworski at rsna.org.

Here is the reference:
https://www.fool.com/earn...20-earnings-call-tran/

"At this point, I would like to provide a brief update on the regulatory approval process. Recall that in January 2020, we submitted the 510(k) application to the FDA under its third-party review program for a single-source version of Nanox Arc. In March 2020, we received a request for additional information from the third-party reviewer, which responded to in September 2020. Nanox is working to continue to optimize and develop additional features in the Nanox.Arc, and we plan to submit an additional 510(k) application for the multi-source version of Nanox.Arc in the coming months."

fw | 11/18/20 12:03PM :

'dog ate my homework'

richard.x.roe | 11/18/20 01:52PM :

Does anyone have experience with this equipment, used in interventional radiology, from what I can tell. I have the specs, but I am looking for anecdotes. Cost is less than $2 million, from public quotes I have seen (due to the detectors and processing, not the tube or motors, of course). RoleCall mentioned dynaCT (Siemens), but the equipment is also known as:

C-arm CT
Cone-beam CT
Volumetric CT
Rotational CT
Rotational angiography
Flat-panel volume CT

, and also known as XperCT[Philips] / 3D imaging[Toshiba] / Innova CT HD[GE Healthcare].

https://www.siemens-healt...lications/syngo-dynact
https://www.youtube.com/w...4&feature=youtu.be

I think with a lot of work and luck, Nanox may be able to release a somewhat competitive stationary device that costs only $10,000,000 and takes only 6 years for FDA approval.

n.rad | 11/18/20 02:30PM :

That looks like a pretty standard interventional radiology setup used for procedures/angiography. Both the table and C-arm are motorized. There is a control panel that allows you to move the equipment and change settings. They can do fluoro and DSA (digital subtraction angiography). These have the ability to spin, creating a CT-like image (not a substitute for a diagnostic CT) and with limited uses. There are additional things that add to the cost that you need like an injector that syncs up with the device.

n.rad | 11/18/20 05:41PM :

One of the only remaining bull arguments I’m seeing is based on reputations of those involved. Have you guys seen this stuff about the CEO?

https://www.cnet.com/news...s-off-legal-challenge/

“ The lawsuit was brought on by three board members, one of which was co-founder and former CEO Ran Poliakine, who volunteered to step down under investor pressure. Two Powermat board members who represented the shareholders lent their support to Heins in the company's statement.

"We categorically rejected the baseless allegations in the nuisance lawsuit brought by Ran Poliakine, a failed and discredited CEO," they said.”

https://en.globes.co.il/e...-management-1000976954

“ The dreadful financial situation of Israeli company Powermat, which develops technology that allows smartphone users to wirelessly charge their devices (by placing them on a special charging mat), is a result of failing management at the company headed by founder and CEO Ran Poliakine, who manages the company improperly and unlawfully, in breach of his duty as an executive officer, by treating the company as his own, providing favors to his close associates, mixing together various businesses and companies he controls and the company, and taking advantage of company resources and the company's employees,” says a Powermat investor and board member”

n.rad | 11/18/20 05:43PM :

But wait, there’s more

“ The claim, filed by Amnon Shiboleth, Elad Greiner, and Racheli Zilberberg from Shibolet & Co., further states that extremely suspicious actions were made by Poliakine in conjunction with some of the company’s board members, and entities with which they are affiliated, without reporting their personal involvement to the company’s board of directors before approving the deals, as they are required to do by law, and by presenting incomplete and false data to the company’s board of directors. “This,” says the claim, “seems to have been in order to enable them to collect personal profits, at the expense of the company and its shareholders’ wellbeing, by causing significant financial losses to the company.”

n.rad | 11/18/20 05:46PM :

Whenever they make the Theranos-esque documentary it’s not going to look so good If RSNA gives these guys a platform. Especially if it’s in violation of FDA regulations.

fw | 11/18/20 09:26PM :

[quote=Thread Enhancer]

Pre and post contrast images in there.

What is that supposed to show? Clearly the Arc can't perform imaging like that.
[/quote]

This is a conceptual sketch drawing of 'how it would look like if it was real'. Note the giant 'easy' button at the bottom right. Just click 'Done' and the magic fairies and AI overcome the bounds of physics, automatically 'annotate' and even bill the $12 for the study.

RoleCall | 11/19/20 05:35AM :

I've only used dynaCT a handful of times on livers. Picture isn't great on larger patients in my experience but it does produce an image. Probably works better for small parts

richard.x.roe | 11/19/20 08:10AM :

News from Nanox today at the Canaccord presentation ( https://wsw.com/webcast/canaccord44/nani/2435684 ).

[u]The Nanox radiologists are the best! You guys need glasses.[/u]

9min:30sec : We have many radiologists, that are playing with our technology for a long time, confirming that the image quality is very very good.

[u]Damn, I will have to register for RSNA 2020 after all to attend the live demo!

[/u]

19min:16sec The next thing is that we are going to unveil the technology demo at the RSNA show. This is really a more scientific conference. We are going to allow our clinicians and a lot of very famous radiologists that are working with the company as well as academic universities to explain what they do with that , what's so special about Nanox, to show technology from its basis all the way to action in 2D and 3D, talking about the chips, the tubes, the limitations, so hopefully it will be interesting. But we are going also to allow the investors community immediately after the RSNA - we are going to invite [them to] what you call a "full disclosure" conference and there we are going to talk about the RSNA but also other things, so stay tuned to this.

Side note: One of these famous radiologists that does not need glasses must be Geoffrey Rubin, M.D., M.B.A. (now a Chair of Medical Imaging at University of Arizona, formerly with Duke). He is on the list of presenters/moderators at RSNA 2020. Anyone know what/when he is presenting? He has not responded to my emails...

Thread Enhancer | 11/19/20 08:40AM :

Just watched. Nothing more than what is in their online document. This guy is a complete fraud. I can’t wait until we start to hear from the partner radiologists. I am quite skeptical that any will put their reputations on the line but if they do the community will not go easy on them.

vaporfly | 11/19/20 09:00AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

Anyone here know the Xinray story - the inventors of the Nanox.Arc mini (the less-ambitious versions of Nanox.Arc)?

[/quote]

Sorry I haven't been on this site for a while and missed all these new messages. XinRay is basically a bunch of Chinese (or Chinese-American) engineers out of UNC. They were working on a CNT-based cathode that worked somewhat but not really. I believe they had a relationship with Micro-X but that ended a few years ago and nothing came of it. Micro-X went ahead and developed their own cathode/machines, while the XinRay guys went back to China and are now working on something in the security space. They're not involved with medical at all anymore.

vaporfly | 11/19/20 09:06AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

Anyone here know the Xinray story - the inventors of the Nanox.Arc mini (the less-ambitious versions of Nanox.Arc)?

Did you attend/remember this presentation: http://archive.rsna.org/2013/13016309.html ?

It is a JV of Siemens and Xintek (a bunch of professors from UNC doing nanotech), and I did come across it on my own but vaporfly reminded me about it, too. These guys were publishing papers and even doing human studies on "stationary" tomosynthesis for chest, mamography, IGRT, etc - multiple CNT cathodes or tubes covering say 30 degrees and a fast flat detector - they were much less ambitious (and knew that a 510K approval is impossible) and cost was never discussed. Looks like they finally gave up last year. The only commercial device ever coming out was a small CNT tube used for awhile in a portable/mobile x-ray ( https://www.carestream.com/en/us/medical/products/radiography/dr-systems/carestream-drx-revolution-nano-mobile-x-ray-system , made by publicly-traded Micro-X in Australia - the tube is no longer used)

[/quote]

Just to clarify further, the XinRay guys had nothing to do with Nanox. I don't believe the XinRay ever managed to scale up the current on its tube without burning out its cathode. So Carestream mobile system you're referring to is made by Micro-X, using the Carestream name and detector. Micro-X hoped to use a XinRay tube originally but ended up using their own tube. That machine is currently on the market but has nothing to do with the old XinRay tubes.

vaporfly | 11/19/20 09:25AM :

[quote=zeuses]

Good points - We may not have to wait 'til RSNA they're supposed tp present at the Jefferies Virtual London Healthcare Conference on Nov 17th.
[/quote]

I have the transcript but it's not very clean and it's also a PDF so I can't upload it here. But I'll copy/paste a few snippets below:

-----------------------

Q: Yes. Thanks, Ran. We have about 10 or so minutes for questions. So maybe I could start with you included actually in one of your latter slides about the upcoming demonstration RSNA in December. Maybe you could share a little bit more about what you'll show at that meeting? What people can expect from that?

A: Yes, sure. Of course. I will not I will not it's not going to be a spoiler, but I can
only tell you that it's going to be super exciting time for us at the RSNA. This is the first professional show that we're going to demonstrate our technology. Not only the technology, but also what it means from radiology point of view. So, we're going to present 2D, we are going to present everything. From the chip to the tube to a system. Prototype that is showing 2D images, 3D images. We're going to have top radiologists from the world actually talking about what we can see and what can be done with this very specific geometry. It's going to be very interesting. It's starting on November 29. So, I think going through December 4. And, during this time, we're going to (inaudible). This year, given COVID-19, it's (inaudible). And we're going to have a lot of new materials and publications that we're going to show. White [ph] papers [ph]. But also, we're going to have a live demo stream from Israel with our units and our demo and radiologists in live showing what Nano-X is all about. So, stay tuned and I think it's going to be very interesting.

-------------------------

Q: Great, we actually have a few questions on the website as well. Maybe have [ph] got [ph] a couple of them, but, at a very high level, can you maybe explain the clinical performance of your technology vs. a traditional x-ray. Are there any disadvantages to using your technology vs. a standard x-ray? And
there's also a question on the level of radioactive exposure, radiation exposure to technician, and using your system vs. standard.

A: I touched a point a bit on the the x-rays (inaudible). Let me give you the best analogy. It's lighting. Lighting used to be generated by Edison Light, which was based on a thermionic filament. And then it moves to LED, which is cold. Both of them -- generating light. We are exactly the same. X-ray is x-ray. We're generating x-ray with a radiation with a limitation, but also with a benefit. So, in that sense, I think the audience -- that person from the audience (inaudible) should think of us as a new modality of (inaudible) that costs much, much less. But it's still xray. Now, in terms of modalities and systems, what you can do with that again, it depends on the system. So, we took the approach that we want to bring a more generic kind of full body scanners that can do a lot of what you need in urgent care units or countries that do not have anything. We're not competing afterwards with a CT -- very sophisticated CT that are in the (inaudible) for oncology or whatever. But the technology itself can do anything that x-ray can do. So, I want to separate between technology and the modality, OK? And, by the way, for that end, we're working with the big guys. So, we are coming (inaudible) instead of having a 1 m tall, very hot cube, why don't you use this one? It's only 11 cm and you can do whatever you do with that the same way. So, that's really the approach.

zeuses | 11/19/20 09:45AM :

Much thanks vaporfly. The RSNA demo should be interesting.

n.rad | 11/19/20 09:59AM :

He still seems pretty uninformed here. “An x-ray is an x-ray”... His answer to the second question is different than what he said in earlier interviews and it seems different than what is implied and/or stated in the F1. It sounds like someone told him this thing cannot perform as a modern CT. I don’t see how there is any market in the developed world even if they could pull it off. Imagine the patient that goes to the urgent care and gets a Nanox 3D exam and their subdural is missed... because they didn’t get a CT. I’m surprised there are people at these conferences listening to these answers and still remaining as investors.

n.rad | 11/19/20 10:19AM :

The F1 has about 30 instances of “CT” These are a few statements where they compare their technology:

“In the United States, we expect the retail price to represent a significant reduction compared to the $3,275 average cost of a CT scan. We expect the Nanox System will be operated by local operators independent from us, but we would contract with third parties to provide the day-to-day maintenance of the Nanox System.”

“ For example, a new high-end CT scanner sells for $1,350,000 to $2,100,000, with an additional $35,000 to $100,000 for cardiac software, $15,500 to $35,000 for lung software and approximately 10% to 14% of the capital expenditure cost for annual support and maintenance services, reaching a total cost of ownership in the millions of dollars.”

Thread Enhancer | 11/19/20 10:20AM :

The people listening have no knowledge of the space. They are just believing Ran's fantasy. RSNA is going to be a hoot.

n.rad | 11/19/20 10:21AM :

I wonder how honest you are expected to be in these SEC filings.

richard.x.roe | 11/19/20 10:21AM :

The CEO is actually pretty smart. See how he makes the point about the hot Edison's lightbulb vs the cold LED! Cold clearly beats hot!

Just like General Electric's even hotter tungsten lightbulb killed Edison's hot carbon lightbulb, and just a few years later, General Electric's hot-cathode X-ray tube killed the cold-cathode X-ray tube used by Roentgen. Oh, wait!

Thread Enhancer | 11/19/20 10:25AM :

He keeps talking about the hot filament sending out x-rays. Does he have any idea what he is talking about?

n.rad | 11/19/20 10:29AM :

I wonder if he’ll have the cojones to take questions from us or if he’ll just defer to some of the “advisor” rads.

richard.x.roe | 11/19/20 10:29AM :

My reading of the SEC filings is that they are targeting "tomosynthesis" with their multi-source Nanox.Arc. By tomosynthesis they mean something that is between a plain X-ray and a CT, but not necessarily what you may know as tomosynthesis.

I don't remember anybody going to jail or paying a fine for lying in a prospectus recently.

Thread Enhancer | 11/19/20 10:32AM :

[quote=n.rad]

I wonder if he’ll have the cojones to take questions from us or if he’ll just defer to some of the “advisor” rads.
[/quote]
I'm actually more interested in finding out who among the "advisor" rads will defend Nanox. We are pretty merciless with each other. It could get ugly if a practicing radiologist tries to claim the Arc can perform any practical imaging that would be useful in any form of practice.

| :

n.rad | 11/19/20 10:38AM :

That’s true. Could be an academic career ender to be associated with them when the dust settles.

richard.x.roe | 11/19/20 10:38AM :

I don't think so (that is, I think he has an idea about what he is talking about). The functioning of the X-ray tube was explained to him by a Japanese lawyer (as shown in the picture below). He knows that the hot filament sends out electrons. The problem with the 10W hot filament is that it overheats the 200W tube. On the other hand, the cold-cathode chip has these 100 million cones, each sending one electron at a time (this important scientific discovery about the one-electron-a-time was first reported at that presentation) - no more extra 10W! Tube heating problem solved.

[quote=Thread Enhancer]
He keeps talking about the hot filament sending out x-rays. Does he have any idea what he is talking about?
[/quote]

n.rad | 11/19/20 10:48AM :

I like how he says they’re working with the “big guys” you know, them USARAD ballers.

richard.x.roe | 11/19/20 10:57AM :

By the "big guys" he actually means "General Electric, Siemens, Philips, Hologic, Varian, Fuji, Toshiba and Hitachi," as disclosed in the prospectus. He is saying that they will all eventually license the cold-cathode tech (although Nanox's primary business model is still the service one, not the licensing). In fact, he insists that Fujifilm is actually already a strategic partner and investor, licensing the cold-cathode tech for use in Mamography (apparently, he forgot that Fujifilm never licensed or invested anything, and its "right to negotiate" expired in June)

[quote=n.rad]

I like how he says they’re working with the “big guys” you know, them USARAD ballers.
[/quote]

richard.x.roe | 11/22/20 05:25PM :

Damn, I missed the RSNA presentation. The 2015 one. Take a look at the November 2015 blog post by Nanox CEO (then he was the Chief Strategy Officer of Nanox Imaging, or the predecessor of Nanox). I am so disappointed mainly because he never gave the promised "complete update after the show" about the "new breakthrough" that felt "exhilarating." (He is now promising again the same update to investors after RSNA 2020 is over)

Anyone remember this clown?

https://web.archive.org/w...m/2015/11/imaging-3-0/

Hi Friends,
Next week I will be attending the annual meeting of the The Radiological Society of North America (http://www.rsna.org/]RSNA[/link]) in Chicago to unveil our newest technology, http://nanox-technology.com/]Nanox Imaging[/link]. For those of you who don’t know, RSNA is an international society of radiologists, medical physicists and other medical professionals with more than 54,000 members across the globe.
If you are familiar with my body of work and the past projects that I have worked on, the story of http://ran-poliakine.com/portfolio/nanox/]Nanox [/link]will seem somewhat familiar in that we are once again taking a technology that was invented over 100 years ago, that has largely unchanged since its inception and updating it to address modern issues and problems.
One of the key components in every x-ray tube in existence is a cathode. Traditional cathodes utilize a heated filament to create electrons which travel to the anode, where they create x-rays. This “hot cathode” technology has been in existence since x-ray tubes were invented, and it has many limitations.
Nanox Imaging has a breakthrough which creates a new kind of cathode called a field effect cathode. This breakthrough is truly innovative in that, for the first time, it will allow Xray machines to overcome many of the limitations that have existed until now.
Field effect cathodes have been intensely studied for a long time, but they have repeatedly failed to achieve the power levels that are needed for medical x-ray equipment. The nanotechnology processes that Nanox has developed over many years of research has finally allowed us to break through that barrier.
Nanox’s cold cathode enables new configurations of x-ray tubes that facilitate new breakthroughs in imaging. For instance, CT systems can be built with no moving parts, making them faster, more precise, and portable; real-time imaging of tumors during radiation therapy sessions can lead to improved targeting; breast imaging could be done faster and more comfortably; etc.
I will give you all a complete update after the show but sitting here on the verge of another new breakthrough feels exhilarating while at the same time somewhat familiar.
More to come!
Best,
Ran

fw | 11/22/20 05:49PM :

I am mildly amused by the claim that x-ray tubes 'haven't change in 100 years'. Well they have, very much so.

vaporfly | 11/23/20 08:14AM :

Varex had mentioned this before but just came out with a press release, which included this:

At RSNA 2020 Varex will be showcasing the NT2518C 25-emitter tube prototype available for use in Static Breast Tomosynthesis Systems as well as other emitter configurations for different industrial and medical applications. Nanotube technology replaces traditional coiled filament in a traditional X-ray tube with a multibeam field emission cold cathode nanotube emitter. This technology enables X-ray tubes to be manufactured using arrays of small emitters ideally suited for portable tomosynthesis systems, Mobile C-Arm surgical systems, and portable computed tomography (CT) systems, among other medical imaging applications.

richard.x.roe | 11/23/20 09:14AM :

@fw: I have been reviewing some old Nanox material, and it seems this particular idea ( x-ray tubes haven't changed in 100 years) came from Norbert Pelc, Ph.D. Boston Scientific Applied Biomedical Engineering Professor and Professor of Radiology, Emeritus, Stanford University, who said in a Nanox promo video that "in [his] view x-ray source technology has remained essentially the same since the development of the X-ray cathode tube by Coolidge." Of course, Nanox' CEO decided to make it even more dramatic - Coolidge became Roentgen and cathode became tube. Dr. Pelc says in the same video that Nanox are "good people," and has not replied to my email.

fw | 11/23/20 12:01PM :

[quote=vaporfly]

Varex had mentioned this before but just came out with a press release, which included this:

At RSNA 2020 Varex will be showcasing the NT2518C 25-emitter tube prototype available for use in Static Breast Tomosynthesis Systems as well as other emitter configurations for different industrial and medical applications. Nanotube technology replaces traditional coiled filament in a traditional X-ray tube with a multibeam field emission cold cathode nanotube emitter. This technology enables X-ray tubes to be manufactured using arrays of small emitters ideally suited for portable tomosynthesis systems, Mobile C-Arm surgical systems, and portable computed tomography (CT) systems, among other medical imaging applications.
[/quote]

That is the source they are developing in a JV with a small german company (that sits in Siemens backyard).

As they demonstrate this simply as a new technology without a particular device under consideration by the FDA, they are not restricted from making a presentation it at the conference.

But apparently Varex offering doesn't have any potential to bring about world peace and universal healthcare, so its no good ;-)

DoctorDalai | 11/23/20 05:00PM :

Lest we forget about her...

https://www.foxbusiness.c...-lifestyle-fraud-trial

richard.x.roe | 11/23/20 07:00PM :

Based on preliminary data, this person will probably represent Nanox at RSNA 2020 as a radiologist who says that the Nanox.Arc image quality is "very, very good."

Nogah Shabshin - Chair, Assistant Professor, Consultant of Radiology in Philadelphia: https://www.emedevents.co...profile/nogah-shabshin

Edited: I am adding some more details:
Nogah Shabshin, MD, MBA, BSC is a musculoskeletal radiologist. She is staff and adjunct professor of Radiology at the hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadlephia since 2008, and leading the MSK radiology at the Emek medical center, Afula, Israel. She is a member of the editorial board of Skeletal Radiology since 2008, chair of the promotion committee of the refresher course of the International Skeletal Society since 2014 and a member of the additional committees in the organization. She received the Fellow research award by (2001), cum laude educational exhibits (2009) from the Radiological Society of North America and an honorarium (2005). She is an author and co-author of 49 scientific papers and 3 chapters and well as 92 scientific presentations and more than 33 invited lectures. She graduated (Cum Laude) the Rapaport School of medicine at the Technion, Haifa and received a Kellog-Rcanati MBA degree (2011). She completed her Radiology residency at Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheba, Israel and a Musculoskeletal radiology fellowship at Thomas Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, PA. She was an assistant professor of Radiology at Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA. She founded the Musculoskeletal radiology section at Sheba Medical Center. Dr. Shabshin Completed her MBA studies at Kellogg-Recanati business school. She then served as chair of Radiology at Assuta University Medical Center Network and (2011-2014) and as interim chair of Radiology at Carmel Medical Center. She currently shares her time between clinical-academic work and medical start-up companies.
Areas of interest: Bone marrow edema syndromes, stress fractures, musculoskeletal injuries in pregnancy, osteoid osteoma ablations and deep tissue injuries.

Thread Enhancer | 11/23/20 07:28PM :

Why do you think it’s her?

richard.x.roe | 11/23/20 08:09PM :

She is on the current list of exhibitor representatives of Nanox at RSNA 2020.

[quote=Thread Enhancer]

Why do you think it’s her?
[/quote]

DoctorDalai | 11/23/20 08:18PM :

I don't care if the Pope represents them...the thing either works or it doesn't.

Thread Enhancer | 11/23/20 08:51PM :

Thanks RXR. I have not logged in recently to see who is listed by Nanox. When I registered they had no names.

NYC | 11/23/20 11:19PM :

FW... The Varex tech play strategy seems so much more reasonable... Create the tech for a "new" source and highlight its potential uses. Let the big dogs figure out how to incorporate it--something admittedly Nanox suggests they will do under licensing... I just don't see how a small start-up wants to reinvent XR, tomosynthesis, CT, etc and provide SaaS model with AI and interpretative services to boot. It just strikes me as too much, delusional in fact, and I admit that I would have thought the same about Tesla and Musk 20 years ago... The difference is that Musk, unlike Ran, knows physics and engineering.

richard.x.roe | 11/24/20 07:30AM :

I agree. The problem is that so far this approach has failed. Siemens (XinRay) abandoned it: https://www.academicradio...30019-4/fulltext (Radiologists preferred mammography when characterizing microcalcifications). GE is aware of it, but is not pursuing it. And the inventors* of Nanox cold-cathode are just getting grants from the government - they are not serious ( https://www.spiedigitalli....1117/12.2512959.short ) . I am not saying it will never work, but it is not going to be less than $1,000,000, it won't do everything, and it will take 10 years to get approved (510K is out of the question, as XinRay has shown).

* the story of the Spindt cold-cathode, the "novel" tech Nanox claims to be using, is a 40-year history of failures after failures, with many startups and huge companies involved, and tons of taxpayer money down the drain. Based on what I have seen, though, Nanox is actually using cheap Chinese hot-cathode tubes.

[quote=NYC]

FW... The Varex tech play strategy seems so much more reasonable... Create the tech for a "new" source and highlight its potential uses. Let the big dogs figure out how to incorporate it--something admittedly Nanox suggests they will do under licensing... I just don't see how a small start-up wants to reinvent XR, tomosynthesis, CT, etc and provide SaaS model with AI and interpretative services to boot. It just strikes me as too much, delusional in fact, and I admit that I would have thought the same about Tesla and Musk 20 years ago... The difference is that Musk, unlike Ran, knows physics and engineering.

[/quote]

NYC | 11/24/20 07:51AM :

But, has anyone thrown hundreds of millions at the problem?

fw | 11/24/20 08:08AM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]
I agree. The problem is that so far this approach has failed. Siemens (XinRay) abandoned it: https://www.academicradio...30019-4/fulltext (Radiologists preferred mammography when characterizing microcalcifications). GE is aware of it, but is not pursuing it. And the inventors* of Nanox cold-cathode are just getting grants from the government - they are not serious ( https://www.spiedigitalli....1117/12.2512959.short ) .
[/quote]

Your statements are not supported by the articles you cite.

richard.x.roe | 11/24/20 08:26AM :

Nanox claims Sony spent $1 billion to invent and develop the tech ( https://en.globes.co.il/e...m-valuation-1001310677 ). In reality, it looks like something less than $200 million worldwide by everyone, but tracking all the money will be hard (I don't even think Sony did the $50 million it promised). Here is a good paper up to mid 1999 (Sony efforts officially ended in 2009).

https://web.archive.org/w...ch/fpd/papers/FEDs.PDF

[quote=NYC]

But, has anyone thrown hundreds of millions at the problem?
[/quote]

richard.x.roe | 11/24/20 09:10AM :

So far only three members of the Nanox Advisory board have registered to attend RSNA 2020:

Peter Dawson, Ph.D. Consultant Radiologist. UCL Hospitals, London
Norbert Pelc, Ph.D. Boston Scientific Applied Biomedical Engineering Professor and Professor of Radiology, Emeritus, Stanford University
Geoffrey Rubin, M.D., M.B.A. Professor and Chairman Department of Medical Imaging University of Arizona (formerly with Duke)

Thread Enhancer | 11/24/20 10:56AM :

I just logged into the networking site. Not sure if this will copy well but it now shows these reps as available to communicate with:

Alona Stein
VP Media - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Anat Kaphan
VP Product Marketing - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Bob Yedid
Account Manager - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Bruce Edwards
VP Business Development - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Christine Kappler
Administrator - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Donna Klesh
Administrator - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Gilad Yron
CBO - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Gili Karniel
Product Manager - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Guy Yoskovitz
VP Clinical Innovation - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Ido Plotnizky
Production Manager - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Itzhak Maayan
CFO - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Lydia Edwards
President U.S. - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Morry Blumenfeld
Chairman Advisory Board - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Nogah Shabshin
MD - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Ran Poliakine
CEO - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Shira Cohen
Project Management - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

Interested

Skip

Zvi Bar
Technology Sales Director - Nano-X Imaging Ltd

In

Thread Enhancer | 11/24/20 11:19AM :

I find it interesting that Dr. Shabshin only lists her Israeli location in her bio when she has such a presence at UPENN.

richard.x.roe | 11/24/20 12:41PM :

Nanox has hired the Israeli experts that do fake 3D presentations at expos. Prepare to be amazed at the live computer-generated demo!

https://www.linkedin.com/...y:6737051997884727296/

X-ray Reimagined! Have you heard the BIG NEWS about the future of medical imaging technology? 🧬‍We are delighted to share that Nanox.Vision Consortium the groundbreaking company, partnered up with BARZILAI Exhibition Experts to allow them to demonstrate their novel digital X-ray source technology at the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Annual Meeting 2020.#Nanox goal is to drive early detection preventive healthcare as a new standard of care, enabling a cost reduction of imaging systems by orders of magnitude.
We are proud to be the selected design house to create their own customized immersive experience that will keep their audience informed and engaged throughout the event.
The event is to be held on November 29 - December 5 in Chicago. Stay tuned for the exact date and time of the live streaming demonstration 🖥
What about your HYBRID³? 👇landing.barzilaidesign.com
#HYBRID3 #VirtualEvent #VirtualBooth #Marketing #Exhibitions #Covid19 #Virtual #Experiential #MedicalImaging #RSNA #Radiology #RSNA20

For example, Nanox tube in 3D creating a red spot:

A mystery thing at the bottom (edited: this must be the ceramic Nanox tube that everyone was waiting for, as shown in the single-source Nanox.Arc)

richard.x.roe | 11/28/20 12:51PM :

Anyone having success with Nanox virtual booth at RSNA 2020? I could only download the pdfs ([u]edited[/u]: they are empty!), and none of the videos work for me.

Also, has anyone been able to schedule a meeting with the Nanox representatives or advisors? All my requests have been rejected (even after one was accepted initially).

Thread Enhancer | 11/28/20 02:15PM :

No response from any vendor reps for me. I did just see a session description posted on another site that promises:

This technology is under third party review, pending 510K clearance and presented using medical imaging concept devices.

DoctorDalai | 11/28/20 02:22PM :

"Medical Imaging Concept Devices"...translation...Computer-generated FAKE VIDEOS.

Thread Enhancer | 11/28/20 03:25PM :

That’s how I interpret it Dalai.

Thread Enhancer | 11/28/20 06:28PM :

RXR have you poked around the virtual booth? It sure is beautiful.

DoctorDalai | 11/28/20 08:40PM :

[quote=Thread Enhancer]

RXR have you poked around the virtual booth? It sure is beautiful.
[/quote]
Same basic design as Siemens, but with much less content. Shades of beautiful, empty things to come.

TurboEcho | 11/29/20 07:09AM :

If one truly believes this stock to tank, how is best way to capitalize in the market? It has expectantly run up in the last few weeks. Buying Puts?

richard.x.roe | 11/29/20 07:17AM :

Since the stock is nearly impossible to borrow (at least in retail brokerages), buying out-of-the money puts is probably the best risk/reward (you could only lose 100%). You can always do a synthetic short as well (which is buy the puts and sell the calls, but then you could lose more than you have into your account). THIS IS NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE - you should always consult an experienced investment advisor (or, I guess, replicate one) before your money is gone.

richard.x.roe | 11/29/20 07:45AM :

Nogah Shabshin, MD | Radiological Society of North America (rsna.org)
(a Nanox representative) will present an unrelated matter on December 5, 11:00am CST

Geoffrey Rubin, MD | Radiological Society of North America (rsna.org)
(a Nanox Advisor) will present in two CT sessions November 30, 10:00am and December 1, 10:00am

I have poked around Nanox virtual booth (which is outside the platform provided bv RSNA 2020) - https://nanoxvirtual.com/nanox/ - but all I could scavenge from it is a blurry image of the fake cathode and an industrial ceramic x-ray tube (nothing interesting I could see in the picture of the fake Arc device, except that they may have reduced the Arc angle). I still wonder why they short the pins on the glass tube with aluminum foil - to make us believe that there is a chip inside and that the nano cones in that chip need protection from static electricity?

If any one is able to get pdfs or watch videos, let us know!

Thread Enhancer | 11/29/20 07:53AM :

There are five PDFs listed to download at the moment but when one tries to open them it says something went wrong and please try again. Saving them for Thursday?

DoctorDalai | 11/29/20 08:28AM :

The PDF's all have zero bytes. How symbolic.

DoctorDalai | 11/29/20 08:52AM :

They are now present.

Bunch of hand waving, particularly about how cheaper imaging equipment would be helpful for global health. Duh.

richard.x.roe | 11/29/20 09:39AM :

Thank you, DoctorDalai! I will review.

Question to all of you re RSNA 2020 - which on-demand and live sessions are not to be missed this year? Which exhibitors should I explore? They don't have to be Nanox related.

Thread Enhancer | 11/29/20 01:53PM :

I have to say it is disturbing to hear the "opinions" of the experts. It makes me wonder how closely they have looked at the product or how much they are being paid. Of course the statements are all theoretical but one can just imagine how this will be sold to "investment professionals". This charade could go on for a very long time.

Thread Enhancer | 11/29/20 01:55PM :

There is now a chat space where one can ask questions. That could be an interesting place to watch.

richard.x.roe | 11/29/20 02:03PM :

Those "experts" said in that video, among other false and stupid things:

- Coolidge invented the hot-cathode tube in 1917 (contradicted by Nanox own materials saying 1913)
- The power used by the filaments could be significant if more than one tube - false, same 1%.
- cold-cathode tech is lower cost (contradicted by the SK dude in his testimonial) and you could do things that you can't do with current (cheap) Chinese tubes
- cold cathode allows you to move the source in 2 directions (as supposed to 1 direction for regular tubes that move in 3D like in a mobile/portable x-ray)
- a cold-cathode tube needs no cooling
- no one has considered adding more than two x-ray sources in a device
- a year ago Nanox demoed 2D, today they did 3D x-ray tomosynthesis (contradicting that he saw a beating heart over Zoom in December last year - the lie he told the Israeli newspaper)

edited: Note that no one commented on the quality of the images, because none of those images exist - all the Nanox devices are non-working "concept" ones, even the allegedly submitted for 510K clearance in January.

| :

Thread Enhancer | 11/29/20 02:43PM :

Yes, the concepts are all theoretical and designed to impress investors not imaging professionals. They are way ahead of themselves. Do the “experts” know better? Are they in on the scheme? Are they being duped as well? So many questions.

richard.x.roe | 11/29/20 03:17PM :

I have reviewed all the materials (videos and pds) in the virtual room as well as the new investor presentation posted on Nanox website in the investor section.

No images were shown whatsoever (except some simple blurry ones during debugging of the supposed Nanox software) and no comment was made about them! I guess the CEO could not find the promised radiologists that would say that the image quality from a FAKE, NON-WORKING device was "very, very good."

I think the biggest conclusion is that the fake Nanox.Arc device has birthed two mini fake Nanox.Arcs (a mammography one and a fluoroscopy one, each with the standard design found today in commercial devices and based on failed XinRay/Siemens ideas ). The fake Nanox.Arc itself has been transformed - the Arc is no longer moving - now the table is moving - just like a CT - but the usable Arc of sources now covers just 60 degrees, not 120 degrees! However, in some segments, the Arc can now tilt - not clear how far and for what purpose. The fake Nanox.Arc now uses a commercial off-the-shelf Fujifilm EVO DR detector placed stationary below the table - it is even slower than the Konica's one - it takes a few seconds to take/read a 2D image, but it is lightweight. The cost of the detector is again over $70,000 and the thing is getting heavier with each iteration.

I have a bunch of other relevant comments, but basically this is a company that does not know what mAs means, that states that 1.0E+02 is bigger than 8.0E+03, and that electrical current has "power that is independent of voltage."

edited: The detector is actually NOT Fujifilm. It is Exprimer by DRTECH Corporation. Apologies - the image resolution of the video I saw at the virtual booth was too blurry. A better video is https://vimeo.com/484727730/3217d6e9dd found by zerobid on SeekingAlpha.

fw | 11/29/20 03:50PM :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

I have reviewed all the materials (videos and pds) in the virtual room as well as the new investor presentation posted on Nanox website in the investor section.

No images were shown whatsoever (except some simple blurry ones during debugging of the supposed Nanox software) and no comment was made about them! I guess the CEO could not find the promised radiologists that would say that the image quality from a FAKE, NON-WORKING device was "very, very good."

I think the biggest conclusion is that the fake Nanox.Arc device has birthed two mini fake Nanox.Arcs (a mammography one and a fluoroscopy one, each with the standard design found today in commercial devices and based on failed XinRay/Siemens ideas ). The fake Nanox.Arc itself has been transformed - the Arc is no longer moving - now the table is moving - just like a CT - but the usable Arc of sources now covers just 60 degrees, not 120 degrees! However, in some segments, the Arc can now tilt - not clear how far and for what purpose. The fake Nanox.Arc now uses a commercial off-the-shelf Fujifilm EVO DR detector placed stationary below the table - it is even slower than the Konica's one - it takes a few seconds to take/read a 2D image, but it is lightweight. The cost of the detector is again over $70,000 and the thing is getting heavier with each iteration.

I have a bunch of other relevant comments, but basically this is a company that does not know what mAs means, that states that 1.0E+02 is bigger than 8.0E+03, and that electrical current has "power that is independent of voltage."

[/quote]

'It isn't so much that the Nanox people are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.'

Thread Enhancer | 11/29/20 04:49PM :

Wow, I just read the PDFs. Pulsed fluoro and DBT. Amazing new concepts!

zeuses | 11/30/20 06:36AM :

" Note that no one commented on the quality of the images, because none of those images exist - all the Nanox devices are non-working "concept" ones, even the allegedly submitted for 510K clearance in January.
<message edited by richard.x.roe on 16 hrs. ago"

How in the world can they perpetuate the fraud? They got to know it's not going to end well. OTOH, they've got some big companies as investors and some hedge funds and mutual funds have bought their stock. Go figure.

richard.x.roe | 11/30/20 07:06AM :

The CEO is an art major and in Israel - he will claim ignorance, and you can't sue him (he is not defrauding the Israeli citizens). The others will say they were misled by his artful presentations.

[quote=zeuses]
How in the world can they perpetuate the fraud? They got to know it's not going to end well. OTOH, they've got some big companies as investors and some hedge funds and mutual funds have bought their stock.
[/quote]

richard.x.roe | 11/30/20 07:16AM :

I now have some more evidence that Nanox submitted a knowingly-false 510K submission. Specifically, their draft registration statements say that they did not have a working prototype of the Nanox.Arc device in January (but made one in February). They also state that they submitted for 510K clearance in January. Since the device was not working in January, it could not have created any images or generated any data. But if the submission had stated that the device did not exist and had not generated any data or images, it should have been immediately rejected by the Third Party, per FDA rules. It wasn't (the Third Party supposedly asked for more data in March). Therefore, Nanox must have submitted fake data for its 510K clearance in January.

[quote=vaporfly]

If you're trying to prove that they're submitting fake data to the FDA, that is simply impossible unless you have specific (and illegal) knowledge of their confidential application. It really doesn't matter how many fake videos they use on their website.
[/quote]

Thread Enhancer | 1 day and 21 hrs. ago :

https://vimeo.com/484727730/3217d6e9dd

richard.x.roe | 1 day and 21 hrs. ago :

Yes, thank you - it is better resolution, at least compared to what I saw in the virtual booth. The detector is Exprimer by DRTECH Corporation, not Fujifilm. Nanox is showing debugging a piece of code named "Console Sample" on November 11, 2020. Also, the fake chips, tubes, and machines that do not belong to Nanox are more visible.

[quote=Thread Enhancer]
https://vimeo.com/484727730/3217d6e9dd
[/quote]

DoctorDalai | 1 day and 21 hrs. ago :

"We're going to open our platform to Apple-Store-like imaging apps!"

Is there a buzzword they haven't tried to incorporate into their hype?

How about "FAKE NEWS!!"

n.rad | 1 day and 21 hrs. ago :

I think they pretty much got them all:

“Cloud”
“AI”
“MSaaS”
“App Store”
“Nano”
“Digitization”

It’s actually somewhat impressive they dreamed up a product that can be associated with every single word that makes investors go wild.

n.rad | 1 day and 20 hrs. ago :

I’m kind of confused by the nonsense she says about an open platform for a reconstruction algorithms and starts talking about AI.

Who would want to constantly change reconstruction algorithms or have an App Store selection of them?

n.rad | 1 day and 20 hrs. ago :

Has anyone ever been involved in the capital planning process for a new room? It’s not straightforward or cheap: shielding etc. Their whole plan seems to hinge on tossing these things into urgent care centers which previously couldn’t afford advanced imaging because of cost.

Also, the state I work in regulates the total number of advanced imaging devices. Even if you wanted to put one of these in an urgent care center you wouldn’t be able to without layers of bureaucracy.

n.rad | 1 day and 20 hrs. ago :

I told myself I was going to stay out of this because of the army of uninformed investors out there who have fallen in love with the company but buying puts is looking more and more attractive.

DoctorDalai | 1 day and 20 hrs. ago :

About five years ago, there was a brief flurry of activity here on Aunt Minnie prompted by a little company called Singular Medical Technologies. It is now defunct, and if I had something to do with that, I did my good deed for that year.

Basically, the good folks at SMT put four computers in one cabinet and had some magical KVM-switch-like process to connect one at a time to your monitor/keyboard/mouse setup. And they pushed this "miracle system" really hard as the solution to most any PACS problem. If you are bored, you can read my discussion of the product:

https://doctordalai.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-law-of-instrument.html

https://doctordalai.blogspot.com/2015/11/if-i-had-hammerthe-smt-epilogue.html

The sad fact is, I think the people at SMT [i]actually believed[/i] that their product was the end-all to end-all. This is what happens when you operate in an echo-chamber and only believe what your yes-men and fluffers are telling you. I strongly suspect that the good folks at NanoX are operating in a similar vacuum, tube and all.

Thread Enhancer | 1 day and 20 hrs. ago :

[quote=n.rad]

I told myself I was going to stay out of this because of the army of uninformed investors out there who have fallen in love with the company but buying puts is looking more and more attractive.
[/quote]
Until one looks at the options chains and sees how expensive the puts are. This thing is so toxic I think the best idea is to avoid any financial involvement and enjoy the discussion for entertainment value.

stujonesmd | 1 day and 19 hrs. ago :

I have scanned this thread, and have come to several conclusions:

1. The Nanox CT as proposed cannot possibly produce images competitive with current standard CT models, because of inherent physics limitations.
2. The current company behind Nanox is using unethical means to raise funding, which might, in fact, be used to develop a system of
stationary pulsed Xray emitters in ring format that COULD, theoretically, produce competitive images.
3. The remainder of the proposed Nanox system (cloud-based image storage, tele-interpetation, etc.) is a reiteration of existing technology used by Vrad, DR and others. I consider this a degenerate form of diagnostic imaging practice, since this limits availability and quality of consultation with referring physicians and nursing staff (the latter usually much more knowledgeable about patient status than physicians), and also access to EMR data due to HIPAA concerns. Pushing the idea of the radiologist decoupled from the rest of the medical care team is, IMHO, just plain STUPID. The existing degree of radiologist isolation already contributes massively to radiologist burnout, and greatly decreased value and utility of reporting.
4. As a pioneer in medical image teletransmission (going back to The Nuclear Network on Compuserve, followed by the Loyola University Nuclear Information System, which was the direct precursor of Aunt Minnie, I am APPALLED by how this technology has been abused to subjugate imaging physicians into LCD slaves. At the same time, I still believes this technology can still be properly leveraged to ENGAGE radiologists as full and valued fellow caregivers, by enabling radiologists to function as imaging informatists, rather than disconnected providers of data points of limited significance.
4. In conclusion, the current Nanox product is, indeed, a scam. Unfortunately, we live in times where misuse of telecommunications enabled a complete fraud to become President of the USA. It is therefore unsurprising that such activity should be found in radiology.
However, we should remember that even though Theranos as a company was fraudulent, the IDEA of miniaturization of laboratory equipment is still worthy of pursuit. So, therefore, might the idea of CT based on a ring of pulsed Xray emitters be worthy of pursuit, but NOT at the price of defrauding investors.

NYPhD | 1 day and 19 hrs. ago :

NNOX up another 11% today

Thread Enhancer | 1 day and 12 hrs. ago :

Fun stuff happening on the RSNA chat. Someone just asked for images and the response was "there are multiple images on our website".

They do suggest we wait to "see more" during the presentation on Thursday. More images?

richard.x.roe | 1 day and 11 hrs. ago :

To the chest guys here - how much would you be annoyed, if you have to deal with supine rather than upright chest radiograph, because the equipment only allows the former? The patient can stand upright.

Thread Enhancer | 1 day and 11 hrs. ago :

[quote=richard.x.roe]

To the chest guys here - how much would you be annoyed, if you have to deal with supine rather than upright chest radiograph, because the equipment only allows the former? The patient can stand upright.

[/quote]

Good catch RXR. I have been trying to point out how the architecture of the Arc does not work well with routine radiographic imaging.

n.rad | 1 day and 10 hrs. ago :

Seems like there would be lots of positioning issues with the architecture for CR. Getting laterals with anyone who has mobility issues, horizontal lateral beam for hips, obviously nothing weight bearing etc. Many MSK views would be difficult or impossible. You could probably come up with a list of what views this actually could do and it would be pretty short.

fw | 1 day and 10 hrs. ago :

You are still thinking in PA and lateral categories. This is multispectral, hyperspectral holographoliphic. Why do you think a device not constrained by the laws of physics and math would be constrained by things like conventions of radiology ?

n.rad | 1 day and 10 hrs. ago :

You could get several useless and weird oblique views without having to move the patient however.

RoleCall | 1 day and 10 hrs. ago :

No reason you couldn't tilt the whole apparatus 90 degrees and do uprights. I still think it's fake though

n.rad | 1 day and 10 hrs. ago :

Ah yes, I forgot. The geniuses of Nanox will use AI with the multispectral holographic magic to derive information on a cellular level!

My favorite article:
https://www.israel21c.org...rams-and-other-x-rays/

zeuses | 23 hrs. ago :

"No reason you couldn't tilt the whole apparatus 90 degrees and do uprights. I still think it's fake though"

Taking a break from reality, there's no reason why facilities couldn't have horizontal and vertical machines. Somewhere I read they plan to sell the vertical model to airports and other large public facilities.

vaporfly | 22 hrs. ago :

[quote=fw]

You are still thinking in PA and lateral categories. This is multispectral, hyperspectral holographoliphic. Why do you think a device not constrained by the laws of physics and math would be constrained by things like conventions of radiology ?
[/quote]

Exactly. Why would you need a rotating gantry when the patient can just roll around on the bench.

DoctorDalai | 22 hrs. ago :

The rotisserie approach. Wish I had thought of that...

As far as turning it upright, that would take much more robust attachment and rigidity than this dog appears to possess.

n.rad | 21 hrs. ago :

Maybe that's what they plan to use that yellow robotic arm in the video for: picking up the entire table and rotating 90 degrees.

Thread Enhancer | 17 hrs. ago :

In the RSNA chat space they are now confirming they will show a "live scan" on Thursday. Not sure how one does that with a concept device. Should be interesting.

DoctorDalai | 16 hrs. ago :

Yeah, and let me show you my certificate of LIVE BIRTH...it's LIVE so it must be real...

Thread Enhancer | 16 hrs. ago :

Is anyone else here bothered by the fact that the RSNA is being used for a blatant stock promotion and not to display working and validated imaging devices? I imagine the rule to only show devices with 510 clearance was designed to avoid this. Has anyone tried to contact the RSNA for comment?

DoctorDalai | 16 hrs. ago :

I'm bothered by the whole darn thing.

richard.x.roe | 14 hrs. ago :

It is actually an FDA rule that RSNA reiterates to exhibitors: the exhibitor can demo or market only an x-ray system (device) that has been submitted for 510K clearance and the FDA has not refused to accept the submission and has not made the final "not substantially equivalent" decision. The rules are a little murky with the new Third Party review approach that Nanox claims to have taken.

However, you make an excellent point - no submission means no demo or marketing allowed, per FDA (and therefore, per RSNA rules). Nanox claims to only have submitted the single-source Arc, so it cannot demo or market any other x-ray system, concept or not. The device in the video has 5 holes (5 sources?) in the Arc, so it does not appear to be single source.

RSNA needs to be notified.

However, Nanox can market any x-ray source or sources it wants, in any configuration, spewing all kinds of x-rays, and producing all kind of images with the cheap(er) FDA-cleared Korean detector ($50,000+) hidden under the table, because x-ray sources are exempt from 510K.

jeremy_rutman_IP | 13 hrs. ago :

Hi all,
I'd appreciate your feedback on my latest stab at making some order in the Nanox mess - if any of you can check this short summation and let me know if
a. I've made any gross errors
b. There are any issues of importance I've left out
I'd appreciate it.

Brian Casey | 10 hrs. ago :

This thread is closed to new posts pending a review requested by Nanox of the content with respect to whether it violates the Terms of Service for these Forums.

NaNOx Chronicles

UncleMaxie thread that Nanox does not want you to read

No comments:

Post a Comment

Labels