In the intrest of keeping this thread civil as pointed out by the moderator and to debunk false claims you have published let's go through some links.
It is in the intrest of the reader to understand the following 3 words that were a contention originally.
"Not associated with" "peer reviewed" and scientific.
Let's see.
Peer reviewed
Scholarly
peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book. - Courtsey google search.
The whole slide consists of work published with one of the OBJ director as the researcher.
I am not sure this counts as "Peer reviewed" or "Not asscoaited with OBJ" part.
What part of that was unclear ?
OBJ annoucement to the ASX are not "peer reviewed scientific research published by someone not associated with OBJ".
It is almost ironic that OBJ used "The high level of independence and international accredition" in their annoucement where they claim 900% improvement in drug absorption. Does this ring a bell ? Ironically this is also not "peer reviewed".
Funnily the student that worked on one of these projects was provided unlimited access to OBJ "equiment" whose one of the research paper was later published in conjunction with cough cough !
I wonder what happened with this research which was soon to be converted into a product ? I am sure PDA has been signed for a multi category multi product 5 year agreement and will convert to lets say better than 3K in a quarterly revenue.
Actually quite a few links are missing. Are we now passing of ASX annoucments as peer reviewed and scientific material ?
Perhaps someone could ask the management why the word "electronic" was suddenly dropped from their annoucement and it was potrayed that their science was "physical". If one was to truly look back and read some annoucement from a few years ago there emerges a pattern of disappearance of the term "electronic" to the point where its association with any products has suddenly disappeared.
Perhaps OBJ's annoucement are peer review worthy.
In the scientific world . research that is 2 years old is generally considered outdated. Perhaps I should have used the word "recent" along with "peer reviewed and not associated with OBJ" which would have pretty much made this charade almost a joke to begin with.
Infact, the exact opposite has happened.
OBJ annoucend 2 years ago that they signed a multi category multi product PDA with PG. The resulting rally almost doubled the value of the company while directors offloaded quite a few on the market.
Add to that subsequent soft launch of one single product , pump and dump executed almost perfectly and a CR that some were protraying as absolute "rubbish". Sitting on cusp of another P+D are we ?
Now only if there was some basis in the assertion that OBJ was actually sitting on great results with Bodyguard then PG would have taken this up. Unfortunately, PG hasn't and the fate of OBJ's bodyguard is as unclear as their claims where "900%" absorption was touted in 2006.
Clearly the administrator of that site and I are in sync with what is considered as "peer reviewed" and scientific material published by people not associated with the company or those that do not have any material disclosure about their research being assoiated with the company.
Some Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal Articles on OBJ Technologies not announced to the market
J edwards is the author here.
"
Peer reviewed published by those
NOT associated with OBJ"
J edwards is the author here.
"
Peer reviewed published by those
NOT associated with OBJ"
J edwards is the author here.
"
Peer reviewed published by those
NOT associated with OBJ"
J edwards is the author here.
"
Peer reviewed published by those
NOT associated with OBJ"
Ironically if you look at prelimiary author of this paper
Krishnan G, and do a bit of googling you will find their thesis and some intresting disclosures about the support they received from certian someone.
In conculusion, every single piece of link is either "associated" with , not "peer reviewed" and neither recent enough or in depth to call it "research".
So let me put the question which remain unaswered after a "flame/bait" post of yours.
Please provide "
Peer reviewed" , "
Scientific" "
research" published by "personnel
NOT associated with OBJ" that provides any insight into "OBJ technology" or is in relation to OBJ.
Just so that OBJ shareholders do not have any comprehension difficulty please find attached acceptable definitions.
- Peer review is the process by which an author's peers, recognized researchers in the field, read and evaluate a paper (article) submitted for publication and recommend whether the paper should be published, revised, or rejected.
OBJ's annoucmeent from 2006 onwards make for a very good entertaining read.
Let me make it easy for all concerned readers.
You can't.find any "peer reviewed" , "research" from personnel "not associated with OBJ" because there is none ! Maybe it is being dragged out by confidentiality by said "scientific" journal.
Your entire post is factually inaccurate and full of what you assume is "peer reviewed scientific research".
ALL IMO and googling (what some prefer to call as research ) done by me.
(20min delay)