Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : IMDS nasdaq bulletin board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan O who wrote (3722)	10/6/1999 10:04:00 PM
From: Dan O	Respond to of 4122

Additional credibility issues: Please refer to Andrew's site which has the scanned in FDA reports on Grable's old company. Go there yourself: aaskolnick.com. It is quite embarrassing for the company: 1. The 6/12 report talks about how the company advertised their magic wand as EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN MAMMOGRAPHY!!! This for a product with no FDA approval. This INCREDIBLY IRRESPONSIBLE advertising may have cost women their LIVES if they were tested by it and relied on it! This was said EVEN BY THE FDA INVESTIGATOR on page 13 of the September audit report!!! 2. The 10/20 report calls the labelling "misleading". 3. The most damning discussion is in the pages of the Sept 6-21 report. Page 7 shows that they actually sold this device to people who were probably mislead by the misleading ads. Page 8-9 are damning on the fact that the wands abilities were being misrepresented. Page 10 quotes one ad saying "recommended instead of mammo" for certain kinds of women!!! Recommended by WHOM - the FDA who never approved it? What was the basis for this irresponsible statement? 4. Though the FDA informed the Grables that they couldn't do what they were doing, it appears as if the Grable didn't care. The FDA auditor discusses (on page 14) how Linda stated that the US market DRIED UP after a negative article came out so they couldn't make any more sales. In other words, they might have continued if not for that DESPITE the lack of approval. The FDA's own auditor stated that the claims were misleading and potentially dangerous to women since they could falsely be shown to be cancer free when they weren't. All this from the two people who claim to have dedicated their lives (and our money) to battling the dreaded cancer. These are the people who hide behind emotionalism and claims about "saving women's lives" whenever someone criticises them. What is almost sadder than the Grables is the FDA. Note how they let the Grable story drop rather than checking out what they were doing in their new life. In the October 11/14 report they sent someone to a site only to be told by Dicks kid that the company was gone and the Grables were moving on. After some cursory checking, the FDA let the story go! This is the agency protecting America from snake oil salesman? Where the hell is the tenacity? Obviously, the FDA only releases certain documents (to protect themselves more than anyone else). I would love to see the other documents. If anyone has access to FDA documenets that they feel CLEAR the company, I'd be willing to listen. These scanned documents sure don't show the better side of Dick and Linda.

To: Dan O who wrote (3722)	10/7/1999 10:20:00 PM
From: Dan O	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4122

Unfair (to shareholders) compensation practices: Richard and Linda Grable are two of three founders of IMDS. Between the two of them, they control the voting shares (though it is unclear to me if that will continue to be true after preferred convertible securities convert). There is no independent compensation committee governing their behavior. The patent discussion above is an extreme example of how this lack of independence may lead to a disregard for shareholder interest. Below are additional examples. Richard Grable's salary went from $100,000 in 1995 to $286,000 in 1998. Linda's salary went from $65,000 to $119,000 in the same time period. The average person's salary probably increased 3% per year over that same period. During this period the company had such setbacks as the NASDAQ failure and the drop in share price by 90% or more, hardly justifying the rewards. Further, there were large stock options (some at one-third of market), health insurance, car allowances, the patent awards mentioned above, and cost of living adjustments of 7% per year! Once operational, they will be paid bonuses, patent royalties and other compensation. All of this compensation has been negotiated by management with THEMSELVES at shareholder expense. These lucrative benefits are being granted by a company with no revenues to a management team that has failed the shareholder's in some very serious ways. It is difficult to determine how much of the $30mm invested to date has gone to the founders and their family members. I have posed this question to them and have not yet received a response. We now know that several family members are employeed by the company. It is not clear what procedures are in place to ensure that they were employeed because they were the most qualified candidates (vs because they were family). Clearly, the Miami Herald points out that they aren't doing badly. We need to determine if nepotism is occuring here. While not illegal, nepotism is not in the best interests of shareholders. When nepotism exists, it is rarely good for common shareholders as it indicates that a company is not getting the best qualified candidates for the lowest salary dollar in a rigorous competitive interview process. This is unacceptable in any company, particularly one that cannot afford to spend precious corporate resources to enrich family members of the majority owners. The alleged family relationships have been denied for a while until recently. If there are relationships, any denials or half-truthful answers are relevant in that they might be considered attempts to alleviate concerns about nepotism through deliberate deception. Though it is not illegal to employ family or for family to invest in a corporation, it is not unreasonable to ask whether arms length negotiations are occurring, whether shareholder interests are being watched over (given the lack of independent review), whether proper disclosures of related party activity has occurred (only Linda and Richard are mentioned in related party transactions) and whether shareholders have been deceived by denials made by the organization in the past.