A confused press release by Nanox points to fraud

Yesterday Nanox issued a press release and filed a 6-K about its premarket submission to the FDA for a device called Nanox.Arc.  The press release contradicts numerous claims made by Nanox in the past, and contains at least one red herring.

510(k) means the device is not novel

Nanox had repeatedly claimed in the past that the Nanox.Arc device is novel.  Here is another instance, not covered previously:

Nanox.ARC, in collaboration with its companion cloud-based software Nanox.Cloud, is a novel digital x-ray device intended to provide end-to-end medical imaging services ..., according to Nanox founder and CEO Ran Poliakine.

Here is another:

...to use the Nanox ARC system on site for developing novel early-detection and screening protocols to promote global preventive healthcare practices.

The problem is a that a novel device, by definition, cannot be cleared.  Clearance aka pre-market submission aka 510(k) submission is simply a submission made to the FDA to demonstrate that the device to be marketed is as safe and effective, that is, substantially equivalent, to a legally marketed device (section 513(i)(1)(A) FD&C Act) - definitely not novel.  The FDA explains:  

Novel devices include those brought to market through the premarket approval (PMA), humanitarian device exemption (HDE), and De Novo pathways, as well as a subset of those that are brought to market with 510(k) clearance or Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Of the thousands of 510(k) clearances every year, the FDA considers only those devices with a breakthrough designation to be novel. In addition, in 2020, we are including first-of-a-kind devices authorized under our EUA authority as novel devices. Novel or innovative does not simply mean “new.” They address an unmet need, or may be safer or more effective than currently available alternatives. For FDA-approved and FDA-cleared medical devices, innovation, and safety are two sides of the same coin.

Nanox has not requested a breakthrough device designation.  The 510(k) submission therefore contradicts the claim that Nanox.Arc is novel.

510(k) confirms the RSNA 2020 demo was illegal

Nanox claims to have demonstrated Nanox.Arc version 2.0 at the "virtual" RSNA 2020 trade show last December.  Today's press release confirms the device had no clearance pending at the time of the demo.  This article explains:

A device that lacks FDA marketing clearance is considered "investigational," and therefore the company cannot promote, advertise or accept orders for it. The FDA considers such activities to be “commercialization of an unapproved device." The FDA does make some exceptions for trade shows, however,... [only if the device] is the subject of a pending 510(k) application. It cannot take orders or be prepared to take orders that might result in contracts for sale for the device unless limited to research or investigational use.”

So, since the submission was announced just yesterday, there was no clearance pending in December, which means the device was marketed illegally in December.

This can't be the first version of the "multi-source" Nanox.Arc

According to Nanox technology webpage, the first version of the multi-source Nanox.Arc looks like this:

That device is completely fake.  It is has no x-ray tube, no x-ray detector, no ability to scan - in fact, it is just a mock-up plus an LED light and a battery.  Version 1.5 on that webpage does not look less fake.

At RSNA 2020, Nanox CEO insisted that the design of the multi-source Nanox.Arc has been finalized (in its version 2) - he was just confused whether the device had 5 or 6 x-ray tubes:

The design was changed again in February 2021 - version 2.5? - and the device had no x-ray tubes or a detector.

The device, even if cleared, is not meant for shipping

The press release states:

We are excited to take this next step in our regulatory process as we move toward future versions of the multi-source Nanox.ARC, which will fulfill current and future contracts with service providers and collaboration agreements and allow us to achieve our global vision.

Apparently, the device, as submitted for clearance, is not meant to be delivered or commercialized.  So, why has then Nanox submitted a pre-market notification, that is 510(k)?  Why hasn't Nanox submitted a device that can actually be used? 

 

Nanox.Arc can scan only one human "body part"

The press release states:

Nanox.ARC is a 3-D tomosynthesis imaging system that produces scans of a human body part.  

Just one "body part?"  Which one?  There aren't many "body parts" that can be properly imaged in the supine or prone position using 3-D tomosynthesis.  None are considered "usually appropriate" by the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria.

The "a" is a subtle change from the "the" on page 62 in the annual report, where Nanox claims:

 

Subject to receiving regulatory clearance, the first version of the multi-source Nanox.ARC that we expect to introduce to the market is expected to be a 3D tomosynthesis imaging system that produces a 3D reconstruction of the scanned human body part...

Not much use for a device that can image only one human body part, even if the device were available for free.  

Tomosynthesis is a failed modality

The press release claims there

 

exists a significant unmet medical need globally for a more accessible and cost-effective medical imaging solution

Presumably, a tomosynthesis device like the proposed Nanox.Arc could meet that need.  However,  tomosynthesis is a failed modality, with possible exception of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), which Nanox.Arc cannot do due to its design.  Tomosynthesis (also known as tomography, not to be confused with CT or computed tomography) has existed since the 1930s in one shape or another, but its share (DBT excluded) has been less than 1% of unit shipments of diagnostic x-ray devices in the United States and probably even less in the world (based on a preliminary and unpublished analysis of FDA's x-ray assembler data files).  Yes, it is cheap (maybe 10-20% more expensive than plain old x-ray devices - sometimes just a software update is required), but from diagnostic point of view, it is not much better than taking two or three plain radiographs, and it cannot compete with the "gold standards" such as CT or other non-x-ray technologies.

Nanox.Arc is not designed for easy setup and operation

The press release states:

The system is being designed for easy setup and operation with multiple alternately-switched X-ray tubes arranged around the patient.

However, the RSNA 2020 demo revealed that the device requires an external high-voltage generator.  Also, the annual report states that need for 

potential customers to invest in the required safety infrastructure, including customary X-ray shielding, to allow the Nanox.ARC to be safety operated.

The device, as demoed at RSNA 2020, is slow.  The scan of a simple "body part," a phantom hand, took about 45 seconds.  Imagine holding your breath or lying completely still for 45 seconds to prevent image blurring.

The single-source Nanox.Arc transformed into Nanox.Cart

The press release reiterates:

Nanox received FDA clearance of its single source Nanox Cart X-Ray System in April 2021

But that April clearance was initially supposed to be for the single-source Nanox.Arc (Prospectus, Page 1).  To this date, Nanox has never shown a picture or photo of the "Nanox Cart X-Ray System" anywhere.

Nanox has not developed a commercial-grade digital X-ray source

The press states that Nanox 

is developing a commercial-grade digital X-ray source designed to be used in real-world medical imaging applications

In other words, it has not developed it yet.  So what x-ray sources are used by Nanox.Arc, the one just submitted for clearance?  All signs point to regular (but poorly crafted) hot-cathode x-ray tubes.  

The press release never mentions any cold-cathode x-ray tubes.  The cold cathode is supposedly the core Nanox innovation, but the CEO is apparently unware that x-rays were discovered in 1895 using a cold-cathode x-ray tube. and that tube was completely driven off the market by the invention of the hot-cathode tube in 1913 by GE. 

If you build it, who will use it?

Nanox.Arc device, as it stands today, is fake.  But what if Nanox used its $200+ million cash to actually design and build its proposed device?  Will it be useful?

Nanox claims that its proposed device uses a modality ("imaging technique") - tomosynthesis - that is supposedly "widely used for early detection" of something.

Subject to receiving regulatory clearance, the first version of the Nanox.ARC that we expect to introduce to the market will be a 3D tomosynthesis imaging system. Tomosynthesis is an imaging technique widely used for early detection, that is designed to produce a high-resolution, 3D X-ray image reconstruction of the scanned human body part for review by a professional diagnostics expert (annual report, page 56)

Tomosynthesis (previously called x-ray tomography, focal plane tomography, etc) has been available since 1930s - it should not to be confused with CT or computed tomography, which can visualize axial slices and individual voxels.  

tomosynthesis vs. plain, per Nanox demo at RSNA 2020 

Even though various medical device manufacturers have pushed it over the years, its use has never been wide.  It never added much to simple x-rays taken from different views... 

In 1993, the American College of Radiology (ACR) started work on developing guidelines for radiology to eliminate inappropriate utilization of radiologic services.  Today,

ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines to assist referring physicians and other providers in making the most appropriate imaging or treatment decision for a specific clinical condition. Employing these guidelines helps providers enhance quality of care and contribute to the most efficacious use of radiology.

Of the nearly 1,000 radiological procedures covered by the criteria, only three are based on tomosynthesis, and all three involve breast tomosynthesis, which is usually appropriate for breast cancer screening and diagnosis:

• "Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic"
• "Digital breast tomosynthesis screening" 
• "Digital breast tomosynthesis short-interval follow-up"

Elsewhere, tomosynthesis is mentioned maybe a couple of times in the narrative discussion or literature search as part of the regular x-ray modality analysis (for example, here and here), but clearly it is not significant enough to deserve any attention as a specific imaging procedure indicated in specific diagnostic scenario.

The real problem is that the proposed Nanox.Arc cannot perform digital breast tomosynthesis, contrary to Nanox claims in March 2020 about no-squish mammography.  In its own mammography white paper, Nanox admits that breast tomosynthesis requires compression (squishing) and a completely different mechanical design, which makes scanning of other organs, such as lungs, impossible.

So here we have it.  According to the American College of Radiology evidence-based guidelines, the use of Nanox.Arc, as proposed, will not be "usually appropriate" under any clinical scenario.

News in Nanox annual report

What's news and notable in Nanox annual report, relative to the Prospectus filed in February? 

Material weakness

We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting in connection with the audit of our financial statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2020. (page 49)

Oops.  That's even before any revenues are recognized.

Dangling chips 

 As mentioned above, we currently manufacture the MEMs X-ray chips in the clean rooms located in Tokyo, Japan (page 15)

Nothing like it is mentioned above (in the annual report).  The rest of the statement, of course, is also false - the clean rooms located in Tokyo, Japan do not allow commercial use, and therefore Nanox cannot manufacture the proposed "digital" x-ray source that relies on those chips (and, in reality, there is nothing digital or MEMs about them).

 

No working Nanox.Arc

Although we have produced a working prototype of the Nanox.ARC and developed a prototype of the Nanox.CLOUD, we have not produced any of the approximately 15,000 Nanox.ARC units planned for the initial global deployment under the contract manufacturing agreement with FoxSemicon Integrated Technology, Inc., a subsidiary of Foxconn (“FITI”).  (page 7)

So, one working prototype of Nanox.CART, the one that got cleared?   But no working prototypes of Nanox.Arc?  Is this an admission, finally, that the RSNA 2020 demo of the Nanox.Arc was faked?  Why couldn't Nanox complete even one of the 10 prototypes that Nanox was supposedly assembling in November 2020 (according to the Q3 2020 results call)?  What happened to those mock-ups in all these production photos pushed by Nanox and its promoters this year?

A side note here:  Nanox never signed an agreement with FITI, according to the text of the contract manufacturing agreement.  The agreement was signed with a Japanese company that is not a Nanox subsidiary, according to public corporate records.

No ceramic tubes

We are evaluating, subject to completion of testing, a transition from glass-based X-ray tubes to ceramics-based tubes for cost efficiency purposes, which are the tubes to be used in the multi-source version of the Nanox.ARC, and we intend to enter into an agreement for such ceramics-based tubes with a new manufacturer in the future. (page 14)

That is, Nanox still cannot manufacture the ceramic tubes that the CEO claimed were used at the RSNA 2020 demo of both the Nanox.Cart and Nanox.Arc.  So, the RSNA 2020 demo was fake and the FDA 510(k) submission may have been fraudulent.

Fuji is out

We have not entered into any licensing agreements; however, we expect to enter into negotiations regarding a commercial arrangement with FUJIFILM Corporation for the licensing of our Nanox System. Any of the above factors may negatively affect the implementation of our Licensing Model, or cause our Licensing Model to fail. (page 12)

This is an admission that Fuji is not a Nanox Mamography OEM (that is, all Nanox investor presentations so far have been misleading ).  In the Prospectus, Nanox still falsely claimed:  

We are currently discussing the terms of a potential commercial agreement with FUJIFILM Corporation.

Chinese tubes 

We have, and expect to enter into, agreements with manufacturers and/or suppliers in China for the production of our X-ray tube, the Nanox.ARC and some of their respective components. (page 23)

Is this an admission that Nanox is using a regular low-cost, low-quality, hot-cathode Chinese x-ray tube and calling it "digital?"

 

A confused FDA: Cart or Arc

 

... we submitted a 510(k) premarket notification for the Nanox Cart X-Ray System... in January 2020... On January 30, 2021, we received additional information requests from the FDA which, among other things, require us to address certain deficiencies and questions, including requests that we provide additional support regarding the intended use of the Nanox.ARC and the comparability of the Nanox.ARC to the predicate device. We submitted our response to these requests on March 1, 2021. On April 1, 2021, we received clearance from the FDA to market our Nanox Cart X-Ray System. ...we may seek alternatives for commercialization of our Nanox Cart X-Ray System.  (page 32) 

Why was the FDA asking about Nanox.Arc in January 2021?  The device that got submitted and eventually got clearance is Nanox Cart X-Ray System, that is, the ugly Nanox.Cart, not the fake Nanox.Arc. The FDA should have asked about Nanox Cart X-Ray System, no?

Nanox also confirms that it still has no plans the market/commercialize the Nanox Cart X-Ray System even after its pre-market notification got cleared.

Update:  Muddy Waters tweets about Gilad Yron, the Chief Business Officer, no longer counting as an executive, which I missed (it is not clear what his current role is, if any). 

Update April 8, 2021:  Fixed some spelling.  Also, the Nanox.Cloud prototype developed by Nanox is just a collection of a few mock-up screens that use stolen images and contain non-sensical findings.  

CT vs Tomo vs Fluoro

I have been having some interesting discussion with Nuno Lemos aka StockZombie @ Twitter, who has compiled his due diligence on Nanox at "Nanox Vision – a fools gold?"  

Here is some feedback on some of his points. 

Can you replicate CT with Tomo?

Nanox has been misleading the public, investors, and medical professionals for quite some time that it can do CT (including the "noise-free simulation" slide shown on the TV screen near the end of the RSNA 2020 presentation, 24:04).

That simulation was supposedly done with an imaginary device with 11 sources and detectors that don't exist.

But Nanox admits in its Prospectus that it intends to do only tomosynthesis - no usable axial slices can be produced.  CT or CAT is a short-cut for Computed Axial Tomography.  See also below.

Does the proposed Nanox.Arc 2.0 have 5 or 6 x-ray sources?

The information about the 5 x-ray sources comes from a video showing the making of Nanox.Arc 2.0.  If one pays close attention at 0:19-0:20, one can see the holes of the 5 sources.  I tweeted about it and so did Nanox promoter, but he did not count the holes.  

counted by me

not counted by promoter

The CEO was lying throughout the RSNA 2020 presentation that the device had 6 x-ray sources.  If the sources were so precious and novel, he would have gotten a least the number correct, as this was the first public demo of the source.

Here is how Nanox advertised its presentation on its exhibitor page at RSNA 2020:

Nano-X Imaging Ltd Nanox is a developer of MEMs based electrons field emitter cold-cathode, enabling the manufacturing of digitally controlled, low-cost x-ray tubes. Nanox's technology is under third party review, pending 510k clearance. Please join the Virtual Meeting Room button below at 10:30 am CST on Thursday, December 3 for a Featured Demonstration as Nanox unveils a proprietary digital X-ray source based on a silicon MEMs electrons field-emission technology. The presentation debuts a novel X-ray tube that emits digitally controlled X-ray pulses and can be used across multiple medical imaging use cases. https://www.nanox.vision 

So, what is the main proposed modality of Nanox.Arc 2.0?

Page 1 of the Prospectus explains that the main use of the Nanox.Arc that Nanox supposedly plans to commercialize is tomosynthesis:

Subject to receiving regulatory clearance, the first version of the Nanox.ARC that we expect to introduce to the market will be a three-dimensional (“3D”) tomosynthesis imaging system. Tomosynthesis is an imaging technique widely used for early detection, that is designed to produce a high-resolution, 3D X-ray image reconstruction of the scanned human body part for review by a professional diagnostics expert

Slide 8 from the March 17, 2021 Oppenheimer presentation states: 

The Nanox.ARC 3D computerized tomosynthesis:  New breed of medical imaging.  

Also, if one looks carefully during the RSNA 2020 presentation video (for example, at 12:55), what Nanox appears to be doing for any "scan" is collecting 45 images (5 sources x 9 tilted positions) and creating synthetic slices from them in a plane parallel to the flat detector placed in the "box" below the arc.

Can the proposed Nanox.Arc, either single-source or 2.0, do fluoro?

According to Nanox, Nanox.Arc can do fluoroscopy (even though it is not its main use case), but Nanox can also license its proposed x-ray source to traditional device manufacturers to incorporate in their own fluoroscopy systems (the white paper addresses that second case).  Today's fluoroscopy systems are very simple - a single source (pulsed, for two reasons - to prevent source overheating, and to reduce radiation exposure) and a fast detector (10+ fps) - clearly a single-source Nanox.Arc can do it (for say, $200,000/unit) ,assuming a powerful enough hot-cathode dental source with a stationary anode (but the best price quote for a new system I have gotten is $28,500/unit FOB Shanghai, and it is not cleared yet in the USA, so it cannot be used as a predicate).  

Slide 20 of the January 2020 presentation at JP Morgan shows the multi-source Nanox.Arc device doing "3D fluoroscopy" (I guess you need a Hololens or Oculus headset for it) using 3 of the 5 sources. 

Yes, fluoroscopy has its own product code(s) for 510K clearance purposes (for example, JAA), but a system can have more than one product code for clearance purposes.

Update:  Here is the completely-misleading slide from the January 2021 JP Morgan presentation that shows that the proposed Nanox.Arc 2.0 can replace the Chinese fluoroscopy system, among others.  See also my previous post, focusing on cost.

Importance of using the right terminology

Nanox and its promoters want you to believe that FDA clearance, also known as premarket notification or 510(k), and FDA approval are the same thing.  Here is what the Code of Federal Regulations, the US administrative law, states:

Submission of a premarket notification ... and a subsequent determination ... that the device intended for introduction into commercial distribution is substantially equivalent ... does not in any way denote official approval of the device. Any representation that creates an impression of official approval of a device because of complying with the premarket notification regulations is misleading and constitutes misbranding. ( 21 CFR Part 807.97 ) 

So, Nanox is misleading and misbranding on slide 3 of its investor presentation:

And on its investor calls.

And one more thing.  Notice the device is "intended for introduction into commercial distribution."  But Nanox claims it does not intend to introduce into commercial distribution the device it has submitted, the single-source Nanox.Arc, according to its latest prospectus.

Subject to receiving regulatory clearance, the first version of the Nanox.ARC that we expect to introduce to the market will be a 3D tomosynthesis imaging system [not the single-source device].  If cleared by the FDA, we expect to commercialize the multi-source Nanox.ARC and we may seek alternatives for commercialization of our single-source Nanox.ARC. (page 79)

If the device was not intended to be marketed in January 2020, then the premarket notification was redundant, and the Third Party should have immediately rejected it, if it knew that the device was not intended to be marketed.  Did the Third Party know what Nanox was writing in its draft registration statements filed with the SEC?  And that is one of the reasons why the submission was likely fraudulent, if Nanox submitted anything to anyone for clearance.

Update April 5, 2021:  Nanox got clearance for a Nanox.Cart (the ugly device).  So, what were the Third Party and the FDA told?  More hints when the FDA published the summary document, around May 1st...    

Side by side

Nanox tweets "It's time to move forward. It's time for Nanox."

Maybe it is the Twitter limitation, but it is not clear what Nanox meant to write.

On the left, we have Hologic EPEX digital x-ray system, introduced in 1999.  On the right, we have a device that simply cannot take Chest PA, the most common medical x-ray image worldwide, even if it weren't fake.

Is Nanox finally admitting that the latest version of its multi-source device, the one that Nanox is promoting here, is the equivalent of an ancient x-ray machine?

The Hologic system had an introductory list price of $395,000.  Nanox says free, $10,000, or tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the day.

Please let me know, if you know the clearance, or 510(k), number for the Hologic device.  The Nanox device has not been submitted for clearance, according to Nanox.  Therefore, it cannot be promoted.  "For demonstration purposes only" does not really cut it, but that's for the FDA to decide, of course.

Update:  Here is how one more modern and cleared x-ray machine looks like (list price is below $10,000, I believe, detector excluded).  X-ray is not x-ray, it seems.

Foolish misdirection

Nanox stock is up more than 15% today.  The catalyst may have been a nice promo that claims that Nanox, the healthcare disrupter, is about to receive FDA clearance within a month and start distributing its new X-ray device.

Quite interesting, given that Nanox claims that it has not submitted its magic device for FDA clearance yet.  Nanox claims instead that it has submitted another, a "single-source," device that it does not intend to market or ship or distribute or offer for subscription or service.    

Here are some of the factual inaccuracies and false implications in the promo:

• Nanox has a new kind of X-ray
• X-rays are kind of boring
• [X-ray devices] are very expensive
• MRI devices use or create X-rays
• A CT scanner costs about a million, 2 million, 3 million dollars
• Nanox has made a radical new discovery
• The traditional X-ray devices and CT scanners create X-rays by heating the machine up over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, might be 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit
• X-rays devices and CT scanners are incredibly hot machines and have to be cooled down
• The expense in X-rays devices and CT scanners is in cooling the devices down
• Nanox can create X-rays without having to manufacture all this heat and cool the machine down
• Nanox proposed machine is far cheaper (to manufacture), $10,000 instead of a $1,000,000
• Nanox will radically disrupt the market, and is also going to expand the market
• We are going to see a lot more X-rays
• The proposed Nanox machine (a rudimentary tomosynthesis device) can generate images that are comparable to MRI images or CT images, not just to traditional X-ray or tomosynthesis images.

Update (March 13/14, 2021):    thedudemd  @ Stocktwits disagrees that the factual inaccuracies are factual inaccuracies and argues that 

a)  "Traditional xray tubes used in cts do get incredibly hot; so much so that scanners automatically shut down if tube gets overheated,"  and   

b)  "ct scanners do cost millions of dollars."

Tubes or devices/machines?  The Fool contributor said that the traditional x-ray device or traditional CT scanner was being heated up over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, which is clearly not true.  These systems operate at room temperature.

But let's talk tubes.  Both the traditional and the proposed Nanox tubes use the exact same inefficient mechanism of generating x-rays, whereby nearly 99% of the heat is generated at the anode and nearly 99% of the energy used to generate x-rays gets wasted as heat.

Interestingly, the filament in the tiny incandescent Christmas tree lightbulb gets even hotter - 2,200 degrees Kelvin to 3,200 degrees Kelvin -  or 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit to 5,300 degrees Fahrenheit!  Each one filament operates at about 2.5 V consuming about 0.4 W, and there are hundreds of them on the tree.  Christmas trees must get incredibly hot and burn up instantly, no?

  

Photo by Jason  Krieger from FreeImages.com

Regarding costs - maybe the latest and greatest CT scanner could cost over $2 million, but you can buy a used one for $80,000, as described here and here.   Of course, the proposed fake five-source Nanox.Arc is in no way comparable to even the oldest, cheapest and abused CT, as it cannot generate axial slices, even in theory.  Moreover, it is not even submitted for clearance, according to Nanox.  The device that Nanox claims to have submitted for clearance is a single-source device that cannot be cleared.

Update June 3, 2021:  The Nanox single-source device that got cleared was the Nanox.Cart.

The production Nanox.Arc has no detector?

So John Nosta puts a tweet out that shows that Nanox.Arc has no detector, and therefore, cannot make any images.  Stock goes up 15%.

Here is the fake, non-functional device that (supposedly) goes into production, with no clearance or any regulatory approval pending, in all its glory:

John Nosta is the same evangelist who in August 2019 posted the photo of the completely-fake 12V-battery-operated Nanox.Arc 1.0 that could emit electromagnetic waves, but only in the visible spectrum.  According to Nosta, it could fit in a suitcase (it must be a gigantic suitcase!)  and would emit "lower" radiation (which is correct, as visible light is lower in the energy spectrum than x-rays, but can't penetrate most human organs and is therefore useless for diagnostic purposes).  

Update:  In case it is not clear, here is where the detector goes in Nanox.Arc 2.0 (which is the finalized production-ready design, per CEO investor presentation post RSNA 2020 demo).

Cropped snapshot from the Making of Nanox Arc video 

Update:  Added zoomed view of Nanox.Streak and Nanox.Thread:

Update:  Apparently some people are confused where this picture was taken, and believe it is at Foxconn, where the volume production was initially supposed to take place.  The picture was taken in Israel, however (notice the green EXIT sign above the door in Hebrew יְצִיאָה - thanks google translate!).  

Due, in part, to travel restrictions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we expect to manufacture a small number of Nanox.ARC units in Israel on a purchase order basis that will be used for the acceptance tests under our MSaaS agreements, demonstrations, regulatory approvals and for the initial global deployment, among other purposes. (page 5, prospectus)

Update:  Added a link to Nosta's August 2019 tweet and a few words about it.

Update:  Ok, ok, this could be the detector.  Added a question mark to the title of this post...

Update April 21, 2021:  Based on inspection of the latest Nanox video, the device in Nosta's tweet has no detector.  What looked like a possible detector in the view from this angle is likely just a part of the support frame.

zoomed-in snapshot from the new video

How SK Telecom promotes its investment

If the lie is big enough, and if you repeat it, maybe people will start believing it.

Someone posted a link to the June 2020 press release by SK Telecom as a proof that Nanox is not a fraud.

The press release states:

Nanox developed the innovative Nanox System, which is composed of the Nanox.Arc, a novel digital X-ray device.

Oops.  Novel!  Apparently, nobody told SK Telecom that a novel X-ray device cannot be cleared by the FDA, because clearance requires a substantial equivalence to an already legally marketed device.  So being  novel, the device is clearly (pun intended!) not equivalent to anything on the market already, and so cannot obtain a 510(k) clearance. 

So, if SK Telecom did not lie about the novel thing, then Nanox regulatory strategy goes poof.  Because Nanox has been telling investors that it plans to 

submit an additional 510(k) application with respect to the multi-source Nanox.ARC, which, if cleared, will be our commercial imaging system

 

But how exactly is Nanox device novel?  Well, it is fake and non-functional.  That's its novelty.  The press release helpfully supplies its picture.

Only for angels (humans too heavy for this "body scanner") 

The table clearly can't support a human being.  The Arc is immobile and cannot move along the table (even though it is labeled BODY SCANNER on the side).  The whole thing is powered by a 12V battery (to light up a few LEDs for the photographer and the greedy investors and advisors).  There are no functioning x-ray sources or detectors in the device.  Nanox says on its tech webpage that this is version 1.0 of the device, and claims:

Cold cathode tubes allow the use of a single high voltage power supply and a ‎single high voltage supply line (connecting all the anodes in the system). Digitally ‎controlling each tube enables the system to be significantly reduced and saves ‎power supply cables, installation space, and so on.‎ ‍

Which could be true, indeed, if 12V is high voltage, if and those cold cathode tubes do not generate x-rays but simply multi-spectral light.

The press release also shows an animation gif of the levitating scan, that must generate antigravitons.  Nanox has not provided information as to which version of Nanox.Arc that is.

Roentgen discovered X-rays in 1895, Nanox discovered levitation in 2019.

Update:  Apparently at least one radiologist agrees about Nanox.Arc.

Random youtube comments

Some random comments, slightly edited, on youtube [and elsewhere]:

• If the FDA approves or clears a device that violates the laws of physics, would you still buy the stock of the maker of that device? What is more likely - that new laws of physics are discovered or that the FDA made a mistake? By the way, Nanox will not be asking for FDA approval, but for CLEARANCE (according to its SEC filings), which is a big difference.
• You don't need heat to "generate" electrons. For example, you can use photons to kick electrons out of metal.
• Almost 100% of the heat generated in an x-ray tube comes from the electrons heating the anode - only very little heat comes from the electron generation, be it from a cold or hot cathode.
  
  
• The more-powerful the x-rays are, the safer they are, ironically. Because the overall exposure in the soft tissues can be lower for the same quality of the image.
  
  
• Nanox tech paper and tech web page show absolute ignorance of x-rays and basic physics and engineering.  The scientific advisory board should be ashamed.
  
  
• Generating a good diagnostic "3D" image requires tens to thousands of images, that is exposures, but that's ok, because the overall radiation dose can still be quite low, if you have good detectors. That is why tomosynthesis and tomography machines are approved and cleared by the FDA.
  
  
• Someone made a good point about the lamb bone image possibly being exactly the same (same position/orientation) in the RSNA2020 demo. Modern x-ray console software has the ability to automatically straighten, auto-rotate and "line-up" an image, but it is a good point anyway and needs to be reviewed.
  
• If Nanox.Arc were real, it would be already deployed in a veterinarian "hospital" or even undergoing human trials.
  
  
• X-rays were discovered with a cold-cathode (gas-discharge) tube in 1895. Electrons from both the cold-cathode and hot-cathode generate heat when they hit the anode. About 99% of all the electricity used by an x-ray tube ends up in heat, regardless of the cathode. There is a lot of research being done now to find ways to generate x-rays without all this waste heat.  Nanox cold-cathode "technology" does not and cannot address that problem at all.
  
  
• Image noise is everywhere. Underexposed x-ray images are especially noisy. That's what cheap Chinese tubes do. Mechanical noise in the live RSNA 2020 demo comes from the tilting gantry, also known as Arc.
  
  
• The machine in the back of the warehouse is not an MRI machine. It is a Canon CT machine (although the radiologists think it is an inflatable prop, just like the company). Nanox will say they have it so they can use it as a predicate and compare Nanox.Arc images with the CT images in preparation for 510(k) submission of the multi-source Nanox.Arc. You cannot use someone else's "online" clinical images in a 510(k) submission - the FDA will reject such a submission.
  
  
• The Nanox industry presentation was on the original RSNA 2020 schedule, but, with the permission of the organizers, it was rescheduled to a later day.
  
  
• Ceramics might absorb too much radiation? Isn't that good? Plus, ceramic tubes are usually easier to manufacture in volume and last longer. So, almost all x-ray tube manufacturers also make ceramic x-ray tubes. But Nanox cannot manufacture them - Nanox ceramic tubes are fake.
• Nope, you don't need more voltage than 40kV to x-ray an adult hand, especially if you use a decent DR detector and no filtration (which is illegal, but so what!). However, the recommended exposure setting for tube voltage with a DR detector is indeed higher (and grid is also recommended).
• You would be surprised to know that the FDA has cleared diagnostic x-rays systems that use 2mA dental tubes. So, yes, Nanox can buy a cheap Chinese hot-cathode tube for $70, label it Nanox.SOURCE and offer it for sale for $100. Don't mix voltage with power - not the same!
• You don't need a great deal of energy to liberate electrons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_function .  As you can see from the work function, you don't need much voltage to liberate electrons. And, yes, nano-Spindt electrodes can do it with less than 50V in the real world.
  
  
• Nanox CEO cannot read about "atomic physics" - he studied art and calls himself a "technologist."
  
  
• Real scanners do use many KVP, much higher than 40kV.
  
  
• The detectors they have shown are Konica's AeroDr and DRTECH's Exprimer. I think they also use a cheap Chinese one ($25,000?).
  
  
• You can get plenty of cancer-inducing radiation even from one tube. For a CT-like reconstruction, you need to cover roughly 180 degrees, at the minimum, with your x-ray source(s).
  


• Yes, Nanox.Arc 2.0 is not functional - it cannot "scan" an adult.
  
  
• The agreement signed by the CEO of USARAD for the distribution of the 3,000 Nanox systems is illegal, I believe, because the Nanox system has not been submitted for clearance. And, yes, he himself admitted to have lied about whether he saw 3D images from Nanox in 2019. He makes false claims and pretends to cry during the RSNA 2020 "demo," because he is an investor in Nanox and wants to sell his stock at a high price. He is not a good radiologist, despite his certification - he failed to notice the mismarked hand radiograph during the live demo and lied about the recommended exposure settings for hand radiographs, among others. Also, he knew, or must have known, that the simulation results he presented were completely bogus, because the first thing one learns about cone-beam CT is the noise problem.
  
  
• The filament of a hot-cathode tube is heated over 1,000 degrees Celsius and uses very little electricity, as low as, say, 5W.
  
  
• Compared to a cheap Chinese hot-cathode tube, the proposed Nanox tube has the SAME size and shape, uses the SAME electrical energy for the same X-ray generation, requires JUST AS MUCH cooling, and is LESS precise in delivering that electron "beam." But, of course, Nanox cannot manufacture such a cold-cathode tube - I believe its demos use cheap LOW-POWER Chinese hot-cathode stationary-anode tubes that can operate at "room temperature." So, no, the Nanox tube is NOT LEGITIMATE - it does not exist as a functional device.
  
  
• SK Telecom President says that the proposed Nanox tube is VERY expensive. Yes, the cheap Chinese tubes can create "near-equivalent" images with a good DR detector (and the FDA has already cleared devices with only one 2mA hot-cathode tube), but Nanox is using them in its devices without the required filtration because they are so low-powered, which means they are unsuitable for medical imaging because they are unsafe (more likely to cause cancer!).
  
  
• Nanox cannot manufacture that "chip" commercially - it has no access to facilities to do so. Same about the tubes.
  
  
• Nanox and its predecessors have been trying to license these proposed tubes to other entities since RSNA 2015 (yes, for more than 5 years!), with zero success, per Nanox CEO and SK Telecom President.
  
  
• Nanox never planned to do a phantom scan with the single-source device - Nanox had already prepared the hand radiograph of the century video overlay (as revealed briefly in a frame in the video). In fact, the DICOM tag shows that the hand radiograph was the CEO's THIRD ATTEMPT ("Ran_3").
  
  
• The introduction of the Nanox.Arc by the CEO at RSNA 2020 was illegal and in violation of RSNA rules, as Nanox.Arc has not been submitted for 510(k) clearance yet.
  
  
• How many tubes in the Nanox.Arc as demoed - 5 or 6? What do those tubes look like?
  
  
• Nanox.Arc table cannot withstand the weight of an average adult - it is made of cheap thin wobbly plastic. Thus, the three light-weight phantoms used in the RSNA 2020 demo.
  
  
• Nanox.Arc cannot be used for mamo tomosynthesis - the devices cleared by the FDA require breast "squishing." No breast squishing means no 510(k).
  
  
• The animal bone scan with the Nanox.Arc was fake - it was prepared in advance, as evidenced by the wrong orientation (by 180 degrees) in the DICOM file.
  
  
• The reconstruction at the end of the RSNA 2020 demo was a misleading simulation - for example, it assumed no noise, while noise is the biggest problem with cone-beam CT. It also assumes giant x-ray detectors that don't exist and will cost millions, if ever built.
  
  
• Each of these opinion "leaders" in the Nanox "opinions video" said at least one thing that was false or non-nonsensical. Not a surprise here - they are paid by Nanox.  Money blinds and corrupts many people.
  
  
• We agree that tomosynthesis is computationally simple (matrix addition instead of matrix inversion) and very old (older than hot-cathode), but in recent years there has been increase in research and publications about it, because in certain cases, such as mammo or MSK or even chest, it COULD potentially generate good diagnostic images with less radiation dose than CT. Agree about the orientation, but you should take a good look at the RadiAnt DICOM viewer thumbnails in one of the frames of the recorded live stream from RSNA 2020. A side note: Nanox used a trial version of that DICOM viewer - they are too cheap to even pay for a $150 license.
• Did Nanox white paper on mammography disappear? The paper was called "Potential benefits of Nanox technology in Mammography" and was shown in Nanox virtual booth at RSNA 2020. Let me know, if you can find a link to a publicly available copy (I already have the actual file from RSNA 2020).

Added January 12, 2021:

• Please do not spread misinformation!  Where to begin... According to Nanox presentation at RSNA 2020, the single-source Nanox.Arc DOES NOT ANYTHING LIKE the multiple-source Nanox.Arc "but with one tube," as you claim.  The single-source device looks like the ugly device here, not the fancy and fake picture you are showing in the video!   On a side note, I have STRONG reasons to believe that Nanox has not submitted anything for clearance, either directly to the FDA or through a Third Party. Ok, back to the FDA:  The FDA is required to to respond within 30 days after the Third Party makes the recommendation (which recommendation should have occurred by early October 2020 at the latest, if Nanox response were satisfactory).  Here is what happens in the real world:  If Nanox had submitted for clearance, as it claims, the chance that the FDA is going to clear the device is now close to ZERO.  Similar DOES NOT MEAN substantial equivalence.  The device needs to be is AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.  Predicate is important, indeed.  Now, can you find a predicate for the ugly device?  Or maybe you can find one for the fancy fake Nanox.Arc device that cannot support the weight of an adult on the table (made of wobbly flaky non-structural plastic) and that cannot take proper chest PA, the most common radiological investigation in general radiology? Let's make it simple for you:  Since 510(k) is a preMARKET notification, the FDA or the Third Party should immediately reject any device that the submitter does not intend to MARKET.  And what did Nanox say about its plan to market the single-source Nanox.Arc device? Cold cathode companies?  Roentgen discovered x-rays using a COLD CATHODE tube (Crookes gas discharge one).  Cold-cathode tubes were the dominant tube technology, until GE (Coolidge) destroyed them in 1913   Every radiologist should know that!  Embarrassing.

Added January 13, 2021, this one from a chat room:

• @kastenz re do DIODES x-rays exist: [Nanox patents] won't help you here - they are almost completely useless because they are mostly misleading. Nanox predecessor has a research report about exactly how the [nano-cones] are made - they had to published it, because it was a requirement for using the university lab on the cheap with the other grad students. It has nothing to do with MEMS technology - it is a simple lithography and deposition. You cannot produce x-rays with semiconductor technology because of the work function - all you can do is UV. Nanox claims to produce x-rays like everyone else - generating electrons that accelerate with very high voltage, say 55 kV, and then hit an anode, thereby releasing 1% of the energy as x-rays. But yes, most x-ray tubes are diodes, including the proposed Nanox one (as in a vacuum tube diode, not a semiconductor one). Nanox, however, cannot produce a working tube, unfortunately (except for R&D). None of Poliakine's other ventures have been successful - all are complete failures. Nanopores - what is that? The holes/cones are about 100-300 nm or so in diameter [distance between cones 400nm to 800nm depending on the direction], if I remember from my measurements of their only microscope photo (which was hidden in a 2016 tech sales sheet by Nanox predecessor). MEMS use nanotechnology, because to make a functional micron-size mechanical part you need nano-precision. Nanox-proposed cold cathode does not use any mechanical parts - so it is not a MEMS device. The sources Nanox uses in its demos and tests are actually cheap Chinese hot-cathode tubes, based on what I have seen.

Added January 21, 2021:

• ​You have no opinion on the stock? That's news to me - your video description says Nanox (Nano-x Imaging) is revolutionizing the X-ray and this IPO stock will soon explode. Unless you mean explode as in get obliterated... Any radiologist who knows a bit of about x-rays and who listens to any interview or presentation by the CEO should immediately recognize that Nanox is a fraud - 1) Roentgen did not use a tube with hot filament (that was invented by GE much later, in 1913), and 2) 99% of the heat from the tube is not generated by the cathode but by the anode, and just about 1% of the electrical energy is converted into x-rays, regardless of the type of cathode used. I mean, this is basic stuff - and you don't need to know what device the CEO is talking about. Then comes the mass screening with ionizing radiation and all that other nonsense... And finally, the live demo - you saw the device he says he will be shipping this year. Tell me, what can that $50,000+ device be used for? It cannot withstand the weight of an adult and can't even do chest PA. I can't find any predicate for it.
  
• Nobody had seen images from the "tube" in October 2020? Hello? Nanox had those "images" in the prospectus. The problem with those "images" is that they are fake, not that they are regular "2D" images. How do I know? Well, the mAs and left/right labels change each time Nanox reposts these images. You claim to be radiologist, yet you have not noticed those discrepancies? How come? There were "CT" images (well, rotating 3D chest, not really CT slices) generated in the fake video that Nanox changed after MuddyWaters commented on it.
  
  So, did you like the images at RSNA 2020 and did you verify the machine produced them? Those tomosysnthesis images were not done real-time - it is easy to see in the thumbnail sequence of their trial-version DICOM viewer, so I have no idea how they were produced. But, yes, you can do some crappy tomosynthesis with 5 sources (not 6, as the CEO says), but it is useless for diagnostic purposes. And that 11-source simulation at the end was obviously misleading (because the main problem with cone-CT is noise, and SART is not the proper reconstruction algorithm), not to mention those detectors will run into $100,000s [even in high volume]. 
  
  Smaller places need a simple x-ray system first - that's what the World Health Organization says - and it is already cheap.
  
  
• Yes, "nanotubules."   Are you related to Dr. Dawson, the Nanox Advisor - he is the only one in the world that uses that word, and he does not understand it.
  
  Cold-cathode x-ray tube is possible.  Roentgen used one in 1895 to discover x-rays, and it did not have a rotating anode.  Cold-cathode had 100% market share in the x-ray tube market, until GE came in 1913 and destroyed it.  Today, there are cheap x-ray diagnostic systems (for extremities only) on the market that use 2mA hot-cathode dental tubes (tinier and cooler than Nanox' proposed source) without rotating anodes, of course.  But they can't be the primary imaging system, because they can't do regular adult chest x-rays.  Hot-cathode tubes with the performance proposed by Nanox are not expensive or large, and they cost less than $100 (while SK President and Nanox advisor says Nanox proposed tubes are very expensive in that removed video which you can see on my blog).
  
  Nanotubes and nano-pins (aka nano-Spindt) make a poor cathode for an x-ray tube.  The only commercial source for cold-cathode x-ray tubes in medical devices now is Micro-X, and all they could muster is a huge CNT tube that can just do 130ma for 2 seconds.  That is why their stock is down the drain and why Carestream is actively discouraging people from buying DRX-Revolution Nano which contains that tube.
  
  Nanox is not using any chip to control anything digitally.  It looks to me you don't even understand what Nanox is proposing as a cold cathode.  The "chip" is just a bunch of tiny metal pins close to a grid - that's all - there is nothing digital or MEMS about them.  With a Spindt (or nano-Spindt) array you control the tube current with low voltage, just as you do with a hot filament with even lower voltage.  And, of course, Nanox does not have any actual working source based on nano-emitters on a chip  - it cannot make it since it does not have the facilities to do so.
  
  All these opinion leaders you cite have already ruined their reputation, because they said stupid or false things in exchange for money in that video.
  
  But you are correct, irradiating the entire world population with ionizing radiation indiscriminately is not a good idea.  You should suggest that to Nanox CEO, because he disagrees.
  
  
• Yes, theoretically a stationary 5-source tomosynthesis machine that also tilts +/- 30 degrees (the proposed Nanox.Arc 2.0) can indeed produce some images, but they are definitely not slices (because tomosynthesis is additive, unlike CT, which is inverting) and they will be full of horrible blurring and striping artefacts, and, in fact, inferior for diagnostic purposes compared to simple radiographs taken from carefully selected views. 
  
  It is true that tomosynthesis evolved over time since the first attempts in 1920s, but then CT completely overtook it.  Only very recently there has been some increased revival with the approval of specialized breast tomosynthesis devices in 2013, but these are still niche products.  Nanox.Arc, even if it were real, is not the first x-ray imaging device that a hospital or an urgent care facility would acquire... 
  
  
• Nanox is not seeking FDA approval, but FDA clearance, according to its filings with the SEC.  Also, it is seeking clearance for a single-source device, which seems to transform each time it is shown to the public (compare RSNA 2020 with JP Morgan presentation).  Finally, there are reasons to believe that Nanox never submitted anything for clearance, or, if it did, it was fraudulently.

Added January 22. 2021:

• It is not a matter of choice - the ISRL ETF needs to track the index, by prospectus promises.  The weight is about 2% (divide 100 by 60, the number of companies in the index) - it is an equal-weighted index - and the ETF has some leeway with the weights based on liquidity.  NNOX was pre-determined to be included at the next quarterly rebalancing, once it did an IPO.  The move yesterday was due to OTM call buying, not the inclusion in the ETF at the close.  Funny thing, the more the stock moved up yesterday, the FEWER NUMBER of shares ended up in the ETF (you figure it out why!).  And that is why the stock is down today. 
  
  Also, why would an FDA clearance of a single-source device be important to a company that does not intend to market such a device (or, at least, did not intend at the time of the 510K submission)?
   
• not from youtube, but in the same line:  I have never said that Nanox "never submitted 510k clearance." I have said that I have (several) reasons to believe that Nanox never submitted for 510k clearance, or if it did, it committed fraud.
  
  The law says that FDA has to respond within 30 days to a recommendation by the Third Party whether to clear or not. Check my blog, or just google around.
  
  Nanox stated in its Prospectus that it submitted the single-source Nanox.Arc for clearance in January 2020. The problem is that in a draft registration statement filed with the SEC in February 2020, Nanox stated that it did not have a working Nanox.Arc device. Therefore, Nanox submitted a non-working device for clearance (which is fraud), or Nanox lied in its draft registration statement.
  
  In the same draft registration statement, Nanox also says that it planned to submit for clearance the single-source Nanox.Arc (meaning, it could not have submitted it in January 2020).
  
  And, of course, the single-source device shown at RSNA 2020 does not match the single-source device shown at JP Morgan conference.
  
  A single source tube is redundant (Nanox' proposed tube is a single source) and does not require clearance to be marketed. A single-source x-ray system device is not the same as a single source tube.
  

More (youtube and elsewhere):

• January 23, 2021: The chip proposed by Nanox (proposed, because it is not commercial!) is not a MEMS chip, because there is nothing mechanical about it. A MEMS chip is not made like a semi-conductor chip (otherwise, it will be called a semi-conductor chip).  Nanox has no manufacturing facilities in Japan or Korea [contrary to false claims in Prospectus and investor presentations]. The video [first posted in Nanox virtual booth at RSNA 2020] shows a University of Tokyo facility that prohibits commercial activities and an R&D (not manufacturing!) lab in Korea that is not a clean room and that cannot make chips.
  
  The Nanox ceramic tube is fake, because it cannot be sealed [to maintain vacuum], and because the chip cannot be made by Nanox (due to lack of facilities to do so).
  
  The single-source device is fake because it changed its look [from ugly to fancy] between RSNA 2020 and the JP Morgan presentation [, and size, shape, and functionality changed too].
  
  The FDA does not care about any x-ray tubes [they are Class I devices exempt from premarket notification and clearance]. The FDA cares whether the x-ray SYSTEM (the complete device) is safe and effective. Nanox has not submitted anything for any FDA approval, according to its prospectus.
  
  
• January 25, 2021:  Dear Doctor,  Cathy's IZRL was forced to buy Nanox at the quarterly rebalancing because Nanox did an IPO in August.  That is how passive index funds work.  She did zero due diligence on the stock and had to buy it, even knowing that Nanox is a fraud, that's what the prospectus says.  Cathy does not care whether the stock goes to $1,000 or zero - IZRL has to own it, as promised in the prospectus - Cathy needs to track the benchmark.   Nanox is not designing a CT scanner - you cannot do CT with less than 180 degrees of projections, by definition.  The heating of filament does not create "x-ray imaging," and neither can any silicon chip.  The demo at RSNA 2020 was not live - it was live-streamed across oceans and continents  - big difference (and, of course, the CEO faked it).  January 2020 (510K submission) comes before September 2020, not after!   What you are circling on the presentation is NOT A SILICON CHIP - it is a glass tube that Nanox claims it is no longer using.  Nanox is not seeking an FDA approval, according to its prospectus  (the first presentation slide is intentionally misleading!) - approval takes years of human studies and billions of dollars, while clearance is done within 90 days.  If you want to learn more about how FDA clearance works and how long it takes, look at my blog.  The company is confused about what is the meaning of "field" in "field emitter."  Yes, if the company were not a fraud, all would be great and cancer and appendicitis would be cured for pennies, but it is a fraud.
  
  
• February 1, 2021:  According to Nanox, the FDA is now requesting information about the predicate and intended use for the single-source device only (the fancy, but also fake, Nanox.Arc one has not been submitted yet). If I were the FDA, I would do the same. Why? Because Nanox stated in its Prospectus that it did not intend to MARKET the single-source device , and the 510K submission is a preMARKET notification. I other words, the single-source device has no intended use (and therefore, no predicate).
  
  
• February 1, 2021:  In response Andrew Kamal @Medium, an avid reader of my blog:  So, what exactly is your problem with my blog? You find the single-source device non-ugly or the Nanox.Arc, in general, non-fake? Or you just think that this SUPER NANOX soap is infringing on Nanox' copyrights? Has anyone of those "smart people," who may be paid by Nanox, confirmed that Nanox is not a fraud? Since Nanox is a fraud, you won't find such a confirmation, I am afraid. Ark's IZRL fund had to buy NNOX and did it with zero due diligence because it is a passive fund that tracks an equally-weighted index of all the liquid publicly traded tech Israeli stocks, and gets rebalanced quarterly (NNOX was eligible for the first time). FDA timeline getting close - you sure? You were correct on the big move today, though.

Update:  March 24, 2022:  Tonsley Innovation District said before the launch of the Carestream DRX-Revolution Nano device:

It is expected that the revolutionary machine will be available for commercial sale next year via Carestream Health between $150,000 to $200,000 per unit.

I have not seen a disclosure by Micro-x itself about the ASPs of the Nano or the Rover.