get it right

To all the existing shareholders and prospective shareholders of FER.
No doubt you ,like me, have been intrigued by the numerous articles that have been posted on this site by FER supporters and FER detractors.
Some seem to be well researched and others are down right ridiculous.
It would be beneficial if ,when quoting reports in the future , you were to mention when the reports were written as selective reporting can be very misleading.
Amongst the posts bordering on the bizzarre are the ones by Leong Chai and Ripperrita.
Leong Chai even went so far as to state he has reported FER to ASIC for misleading the market!! I think that was last week. Obviously they took him or her seriously as FER is still listed and not suspended.
Ripperrita on the other hand ,is very selective in the quotes and reports she ( I assume its a she ) refers to.It is quite easy to GOOGLE hair analysis and come up with all the info these two are waffling on about.
They seem to have taken on a self appointed role of white knights on a crusade against everything that is bad and evil, and obviously FER is on the baddies side!!!

Instead why don't you address your concerns directly to FER if you are feeling unsure of all this stuff that is being put forward by both sides.
I did ,and I have listed excerpts from answers FER gave me in response to questions I had ;

1. "Some people are suggesting the 503 trial which was a published clinical blinded study, was of mice.It was not, it was a human study. The mice trial was a further study done and published to ascertain the potential for early detection and to use mice for Human Breast Cancer studies."

2. "The second issue that rightly has been highlighted was that no one else at a science level ,had been able to replicate the test.
That was true up until our announcement in December last year where we said that the Fermiscan Scientists had in fact been able to do so independently of James.
All previous cases where the other groups attempted to replicate the science independent of James were explained by James and in one case a retraction was given once James worked through with them how it works.
What our scientists, and the announcement, was all about was that we of course conducted the trial work with Scientists that operate the Synchrotron Beam lines and many of whom were a part of earlier work and in the process of us doing the trial they have physically seen we are able to replicate the x-ray diffraction image in line with the Patent application as it indicates in the announcement."


3. "The only way we would have got the agreement with major radiology groups to conduct a large scale trial, 2000 people referred for mammogram’s who will also get the Fermiscan test, would only be after we could give sufficient evidence of the plausibility and evidence base that warrants their involvement.
The subsequent agreement for 2 of Australia’s leading radiologists to join the Board further demonstrates that process has been completed"

4. " The 2000 person trial will be completed and unblinded hopefully in the first half of 2007, NOT 2008 as some detractors have stated, and we are fully expecting that assuming those results are somewhere near the level of accuracy seen in the 503 trial, that we would be commercializing it in 2007."

5. " Only after acceptance by the Ethics committee, Scientific and Medical Advisory Board and the Radiologists reviewing the process and Auditors governing the Unblinding process are satisfied ,would the commercialization begin. This result would be a major paper for publication in a number of scientific and medical journals."

6.If anyone reads our prospectus and subsequent materials all of this is made clear. The one thing we agree with and have always maintained is that whilst we are not a biotech, and in fact have exemption from TGA approval, the future success of the company is dependant on the trial result outcomes later this year.

Everyone then must make their own assumptions about level of risk versus potential rewards for a business that MAY be an alternative to a mammogram which currently has a world wide market of 100 million tests. That does not take into consideration the nearly 40% of women over 50 and eligible for a mammogram that do not have one nor all the younger woman for whom mammography is not recommended due to both breast density and the longer term risks associated with x-ray radiation over time."

7." We will update the Market on our progress as and when appropriate in line with required disclosure requirements"

There you have it folks....the type of answers you get when you go straight to the source with your concerns rather than read the negative prpaganda of the persistent serial cynics.
You must ask the question if these people are in fact shareholders of FER and if not why don't they get on with whatever else may excite them and leave those that are supportive and have researched the subject to get on with it.