A closer analysis of Univec's products, not to mention their financial condition, existing and expanding manufacturing plants, in-place distribution network, and well-established ties to international non-governmental relief agencies would indicate the company is significantly far in advance of either EMBR or MXON. In fact, from a brief overview of documents from these two companies, the comparison is questionable at best.
EMBR (trading at 11/32, down 27% yesterday) has not derived significant revenues since its inception in May, 1995, has accumulated deficit of $4 mil., and does not anticipate revenues for the foreseeable future. EMBR appears to remain at the 'focus group' stage of developing its 'Safety Needle' (not defined as a non-reusable syringe - the most basic and mandatory requirement for the international/WHO market) and, in their most recent SEC filing, the company has not determined if it will even proceed with the production of this product. That determination appears also dependent upon EMBR's viability, which, IMO, is in doubt.
Maxxon's Safety Syringe, a device which automatically retracts the needle into the syringe housing following use, also appears to be in its development stage. This is about all that can be said because the only info to be trusted is that filed with the SEC and the symbol MXON does not retrieve any documents. My only observation (from their PR firm's web site): once again, the device is not classified as 'non-reusable' nor does the company make specific references to their international marketing strategy or the crucial political contacts within international health organizations to facilitate distribution of their product.
Compare the above statements with Univec's status and focus and you'll find their is no comparison. They are manufacturing an actual product and expanding on its design. Univec's product is classified as a 'difficult to reuse syringe' (i.e. autodestruct) specifically targeted to the international market where reuse of syringes (as distinct from needle pricks) is a significant avenue of disease transmission. But, more importantly, the most cursory examination of UNVC's press releases and SEC documents shows the company's focus on cultivating/expanding upon their relationship with the UN/WHO/UNICEF. Neither EMBR nor MXON refer to the UN etc. in the documents I read.
I suggest a rereading of Univec's 25 Sept. press release and compare it to any document produced by either MXON or EMBR.
It was on the basis of the 25 Sept. document and contact with the Turner organization regarding their commitment to providing support for a significant expansion of the international immunization program that I've increased by investment in Univec (through the warrants).
Peter |
