She is the executive director of NCANS.

The company is Novastar Financial, not Nanopierce. For a guy who claims to be so connected, you got the basics pretty badly wrong. You don’t understand supply and demand, and then construct an odd straw man argument based on a different argument.

Odd, that.

As to Jim’s comments, he had a chance to review the NCANS video before it went out and introduced no objections. And it isn’t an infomercial. Jim is an academic, so he probably doesn’t realize that infomercials are pieces that their producers pay to run (advertising) and have a call to action that involves buying something. Neither of these things are true of the VNR that was produced.

We spoke for well over an hour, and his comments, that there needs to be more transparency in the system, and that naked short selling can be disastrous for companies, was given free, with no coercion, to a NJ news camera crew. The other half an hour of comments didn’t make it onto the roll for the same reason that my other half an hour of comments doesn’t make it onto the roll – it’s a 3 minute piece where everyone got about 15 seconds or so.

Jeff, you are wrong about Mary, wrong about supply and demand, wrong about the company she is invested in, and wrong about me.

I’d quit while you are behind. You are starting to seem a little Tony-ish, ya know?

Just a little constructive criticism…

The neighborhood is an older one, quiet, a little worn around the edges, but conveniently located. Las Vegas had grown a lot over the years, and this neighborhood had been spared much of the rampant sprawl that characterized the outlying areas of the city.

A woman, older, but still vital, makes her way out to her car, ready to depart for her part-time job at one of the casinos.

“It isn’t so bad,” she insists with a tone of quiet dignity – “you get to see the shows, and it pays more than minimum wage. I get by. I do alright.”

Widowed, Joyce N’s time is her own. But for all the pragmatism, she admits that this isn’t the retirement she’d planned out for herself. She’d imagined going on cruises, playing a little golf, maybe a nice restaurant now and again. As she thinks about what it could have been like, her face clouds for a moment, and then takes on a look of determination mixed with resignation.

“It’s not so bad,” she says again.

She’d worked hard all her life, and had invested pretty wisely, or so she’d thought. Starting out with a financial services firm in the early 70’s, she’d actually become a stockbroker, and had built up a reasonable clientele of like-minded women who took their financial futures seriously. But at some point, maybe during the late 80’s, the business had changed, or maybe she’d just been at it for too long, and she’d lost her taste for it. All she knew was that she was tired of the market, tired of working very long, hard hours, tired of the sacrifices that it demanded.

And then her husband had gotten sick. Caring for him had occupied a lot of her time, and as his condition had worsened, she’d left the brokerage to attend to his needs. Inevitably nature took its harsh course, and he passed away, changing her life forever in the process.

She never went back to work.

A meager pension was supplemented by her investments – conservative for the most part, but with a certain portion of her portfolio devoted to growth. She was a professional, so she thought she understood the rules of the game, and with hard work and some moxy, she figured she could use her knowledge to build a future with her savings. Everything went pretty well, and then she made a devastating mistake. She had the misfortune to invest in several smaller companies that were at the forefront of their fields, and should have left her comfortable in her later years. Instead, they left her seriously impaired.

One of the companies was Nanopierce Technologies. She had carefully, painstakingly done the research, and had learned all about their prospects and their promising future. And ultimately had decided to make a larger than usual investment as she felt, based on her years in the market, that it was a “can’t lose” proposition. Smart, honest management, breakthrough technology, momentum, strategic partnerships – this had the makings of a profitable long term investment.

But Joyce hadn’t factored in a newer type of player in the game, something that hadn’t been part of the mainstream when she’d been in the business. That mistake cost her everything she invested. And it happened with the relentless momentum of a runaway train, leaving her shocked, and angry, and broke.

“I had bought a lot of the stock when it was at $2 and $3, and then over a period of maybe six months it went to under 50 cents. And then under 25 cents. And I couldn’t understand why, where all the shares were coming from, who would be selling when everything was going so well for them.”

She pauses, looks bleakly at the horizon, then smiles.

“It finally got to the point where it just wasn’t worth it to sell anymore – I’d already lost 95 cents on the dollar. I didn’t think this kind of thing could happen in America, but I’ve learned an important lesson. The market isn’t fair, and it isn’t safe, and there’s nobody looking out for you. Nobody is prosecuting the thieves that stole my money from me. Nobody cares.”

She cracks open her car door, considers her watch, registers that she’s now running late – she needs to be on time, can’t afford to lose her job or have a reprimand on her record. Traffic in Vegas can be pretty terrible at times. She has to go.

“It’s not so…listen…really. Some times are just harder than others. But what’re my choices? Hey, I..I really have to get going. Thanks for listening.” She slams her door, starts the tired sounding engine, cautiously puts the car into gear.

Another day, another sad story, another casualty who’d learned a harsh truth about the system and its workings. The irony is that Joyce isn’t a gambler, doesn’t roll the dice, doesn’t really have a taste for the blinking lights or the ringing bells – and yet that’s where she spends 4 to 6 hours a day, on her feet, doing what she has to do.

Still.

It’s not so bad.

I must state I never bought Endovasc for reasons that James Dale Davidson was on the ‘Audit Committee’then off the ‘Audit Committee’ after Carol Remond of DJ wrote an Endovasc expose’.

Nor because he was replaced,according to Endovasc and an SEC filing,by Montgomery, Texas’ Judge Ken Reilly, (who in personal email to me denied the SEC filing and claimed only to be Endovasc’s lawyer).I bought it for a Stanford patent to use nicotine for angiogenesis.

And the Stanford researchers appear to have made out like bandits as well, although Endovasc no longer touts the Stanford patent nor will they allow me to know what became of it.

(There were two patents actually,one was for ’stem cell recruitment’,but I bought for the angiogenesis patent,wanting to do a good thing at the same time and believing Stanford researchers had a shred of ethics.)

The naked short scam there was clearly to mask James Dale Davidson’s pump and dump of November 2002 from a Schwab account(LOM ?).

BUT THE ACCOUNT WAS FOR ‘SELECT CLIENTS’, NOT ‘REGULAR’ CLIENTS SUCH AS MYSELF,SO SCHWAB PROTECTED THE PUMP AND DUMP FROM THEIR ACCOUNT DISGUISED AS ‘NAKED SHORTING’.SCHWAB COULD HAVE BLOWN THE ‘NAKED SHORT FRAUD’ OF J.D.Davidson,Endovasc,and Attorney John O’Quinn clear out of the water but Schwab and Schwab Capital,in many ways,was an insider to the fraud as well so they kept quiet as I was defrauded further into buying a ‘cert’ from transfer agent Alexander Walker who was an insider as well !!!!

IT MUST BE A GREAT HELP TO SCHWAB MMS TO KNOW A MASSIVE QUANTITY OF SHARES ARE GOING TO BE DUMPED FROM ONE OF THEIR OWN ACCOUNTS IN TERMS OF INSIDER TRADINGADVANTAGE.

And while suckers like myself buy retail from them at 3% per trade,Endovasc and Davidson(and LOM ?)NEED ONLY FILL THEIR ACCOUNT WITH FREE SHARES,(THAT WERE MINE BEFORE THE ‘REVERSE SPLIT),AND PUMP AND DUMP THEM,THEN CRY WE WERE NAKED SHORTED BY CHARLES SCHWAB !!!!

America,what a land of opportunity.They sure had me fooled.

And to top it all off Davidson claimed in one of his ‘Vantage Point’ mail fraud and cyberfraud tout releases to have traded a nicotine patent of his own ‘discovery’,(that would have infringed on the Stanford patents as I thought I understood them!!!),but there was nothing in SEC filings and neither the SEC nor anyone else cared !!!

Stanford Report, July 11, 2001
Researchers discover nicotine stimulates growth of new blood vessels

BY KRISTA CONGER

Nicotine promotes the growth of new blood vessels and can also stimulate tumor growth and the build up of plaque inside arteries, say researchers at Stanford University Medical Center. The finding is the first proof that nicotine affects blood vessel formation.

It suggests that while nicotine treatment may be useful to revive tissue deprived of blood by a stroke or heart attack, physicians should exercise caution when considering the long-term use of nicotine as a treatment. Currently the chemical is a useful tool in smoking-cessation programs and is being studied as a potential therapy for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, as well as chronic pain.

The scientists, led by John P. Cooke, MD, PhD, tested levels of nicotine similar to those that would be found in a moderate smoker puffing about 20 cigarettes each day. They emphasize, however, that it’s difficult to directly compare nicotine’s effects with those caused by tobacco smoke, which contains thousands of additional components. The results of the study are published in the July issue of Nature Medicine.

In a series of experiments, the researchers found that nicotine could enhance new blood vessel growth in mice whose hind limbs were artificially starved of oxygen. They also found that lung cancer cells implanted into mice grew more quickly when the mice consumed nicotine in their drinking water. Mice susceptible to developing plaque in the arteries of their hearts also experienced more rapid plaque growth when exposed to nicotine than mice who were not exposed.

The researchers believe nicotine works by binding to a receptor on the surface of endothelial cells that recognizes acetylcholine — a chemical that nerve cells use to communicate with each other. Endothelial cells line the interior of blood vessels throughout the body. These nicotinic acetylcholine receptors were only recently discovered outside the central nervous system and their function is not well understood. The ability of nicotine to modulate the activity of these receptors in the central nervous system renders it a potential therapy for neurologic disorders.

Researchers speculate that when nicotine binds to the receptor on endothelial cells it stimulates the cells to release a cascade of chemicals that promote the formation of new blood vessels. The new vessels then deliver oxygen and nutrients to the interior of tumors and plaque deposits.

The Stanford researchers were surprised to find how strongly nicotine stimulates new blood vessel growth, a process known as angiogenesis.

“We expected to see that nicotine impairs angiogenesis because it’s known that smoking impairs endothelial function,” said Chris Heeschen, the first author of the paper and a postdoctoral fellow in cardiovascular medicine in Cooke’s laboratory. “But nicotine is not smoking.”

Under some experimental conditions the magnitude of nicotine’s effect was comparable to that seen with naturally occurring proteins involved in angiogenesis. In every case, chemicals known to inhibit other molecules associated with angiogenesis also blocked the effect of nicotine — confirming that nicotine affects blood vessel formation.

The researchers began the study by testing whether nicotine could stimulate the division of cultured endothelial cells. They found that nicotine was as effective as vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF — a naturally occurring, well-defined protein that has long been known to enhance endothelial cell proliferation. Cells cultured in the presence of nicotine or VEGF also assembled themselves into whorls in the tissue culture dish — perhaps a preliminary step to forming new blood vessels. Chemicals that block nicotine’s binding to the receptor also blocked proliferation of the cells.

The researchers also found that nicotine enhanced the vascularization of discs implanted under the skin of mice as well as another naturally occurring compound, known as fibroblast growth factor. The discs cause inflammation, which frequently stimulates new blood vessel growth.

To test the ability of nicotine to restore blood flow in oxygen-starved tissue, the researchers tied off a main artery that supplies blood to one hind limb in mice, and then injected nicotine daily into the affected leg. After three weeks the nicotine-injected limbs sported a higher blood vessel density and were receiving more blood flow than those that had been injected with a saline solution.

Finally, the researchers tested nicotine’s effect on diseases such as lung cancer and atherosclerosis. They found after only a few days that lung cancer cells implanted under the skin or in the lung tissue of animals who drank nicotine-laced water grew much more quickly and were more densely packed with blood vessels than cancers in animals who were not exposed to nicotine. Mice bred to accumulate plaque in the linings of their arteries also suffered from nicotine exposure. The plaque blockages grew more quickly and were thicker in these mice than in the control animals.

The acceleration of tumor and plaque growth raises a concern about the use of nicotine in patches or gum as an adjunct to smoking-cessation programs. However, Cooke pointed out that “it is critical for people to stop smoking because of the strong evidence that tobac

In theory, the Securities and Exchange Commission is a regulatory body charged with maintaining the integrity of public securities markets in the United States. In reality, the SEC is like any other government agency. It responds to powerful entrenched interests. It abhors bad publicity, rewards its friends and punishes its critics.

Unhappily, the SEC also lies. I know because the SEC field office in Utah has lied about me. And I suspect that these lies are the culmination of a carefully laid plan to discredit GeneMax and punish the company for raising troublesome issues about naked short selling, which has also embarrassed the SEC.

If you have been a subscriber to Vantage Point for any length of time, you are no doubt aware that I am a critic of “electronic counterfeiting,” the process by which some investment banks, market makers and broker-dealers drive down the prices of Nasdaq Bulletin Board companies by selling unlimited quantities of shares they don’t own. Since stock prices are determined by supply and demand, allowing unlimited counterfeiting of stock essentially guarantees that the stock becomes worthless.

Of course, a company whose shares are worthless won’t last long. It is unable to raise money if its stock is worthless. All too often, such small companies are driven into oblivion by electronic counterfeiting. When we are slogging along with a weak economy, I consider it almost criminal negligence that the government would permit investment banks, market makers and broker-dealers to weaken the economy further by destroying small companies that could otherwise be a major fountain of growth.

Why would the government let this happen? I don’t think it is necessarily a Grand Conspiracy with a capital “G.” But the bad guys have managed to control most of the news about “electronic counterfeiting.” And perversely, they also seem to have the regulators on their side.

I had a painful lesson in this reality at the beginning of this week when I learned to my astonishment that the Utah office of the SEC had tarnished my name by accusing me of failing to disclose an interest in two investments that I recommended in Vantage Point Investment Advisory. Their exact charge is as follows:

“Among the issuers promoted in this manner have been GeneMax Corp. and Endovasc Ltd., Inc. Davidson is an officer, director and, indirectly, a substantial shareholder of these two issuers. Neither the soliciting e-mail nor the subsequent company report discloses Davidson’s relationship to the companies.”

This is total rubbish. I deny any impropriety. Indeed, the charges are remote from the facts.

As you will know if you subscribed to Vantage Point last summer, I fully disclosed my role as a founder, director and officer of GeneMax when I recommended the company and its promising treatment for cancer. And I also disclosed a special relationship with Endovasc. I am not an officer or director of Endovasc. I have a few shares that I received in exchange for assigning my rights in what could be a valuable patent to the company.

To be sure that I wasn’t missing something, I had my attorney review the record. He concluded that my disclosures are complete: “I spent this afternoon reviewing Agora marketing copy for Vantage Point and the newsletters and have verified that the charge that you failed to disclose your personal interest in GeneMax is completely false.” Agora will be filing a motion to dismiss the SEC’s baseless complaint.

I fail to see how anyone of good faith who reviewed the record could possibly construe it as the SEC apparently has. Although I can’t prove it, I have concluded that the SEC, or at least some of its personnel, were more offended by my criticism of electronic counterfeiting than they are by the abuse itself — which causes you and other investors hundreds of billions in losses. In fact, the costs of electronic counterfeiting are much higher than those entailed in the accounting scandals which have garnered so much attention. Nonetheless, instead of correcting these abuses, the SEC has gone out of its way to rope me into a doubtful complaint that they have developed against another Agora publication — a product to which I have no connection other than a passive one as a minority shareholder in Agora.

Nor do I take it to be entirely a coincidence that while I have recommended more than 30 investments in Vantage Point over the past 16 months, my reputation is being tarred in respect to just two companies, GeneMax and Endovasc. These two companies have one thing in common, in addition to the fact that both have promising medical innovations that could ease much suffering and save many lives. Both have been at the forefront of legal action to combat the abuse of electronic counterfeiting of their shares. But these efforts have hardly earned them the friends they should. Rather than garnering applause, their efforts to confront the abuse of electronic counterfeiting of their shares has made both companies the focus of negative publicity.

In particular, one writer, Carol S. Remond, undertook to paint a negative picture of both companies, publishing what bordered on outright lies. For some reason known only to others, the SEC appears to have adopted Remond’s text in defense of the electronic counterfeiters. In this respect, it is suggestive that the SEC apparently leaked its complaint about Agora to Remond, who cooperated by writing a story trumpeting the SEC’s effort to discredit me and these good companies.

I wanted to write to you immediately when I got this startling news to tell you that I will not be cowed by these Machiavellian tactics. I will continue to raise important issues of investor protection that the SEC appears to wish to duck. I do so with faith that the truth will eventually triumph, the evil of electronic counterfeiting will be curtailed, and the integrity of public security markets restored.

Or to put it another way, if powerful people are so keen to discredit my criticism of electronic counterfeiting that they will orchestrate an entirely bogus charge of the kind carried on the wires against me this week, that itself indicates that more light needs to be shed on the shadowy activities they are trying to protect.

But, on to the status of your GeneMax holdings… Absolutely nothing about this company or its exciting immunotherapy development has changed and would warrant this share price decline. In fact, in an independent study commissioned by the company, it was determined that if GeneMax were funded as low as at $1.50 per share, and assuming that its products prove to work as well in humans as they have in animals, the present value of the stock would be $420 per share, notwithstanding dilution. GeneMax remains a fundamentally sound company and a tremendous buying opportunity at these levels. I recommend that you increase your GeneMax shares, as well as those in Endovasc (EVSC.OB). And, may I reiterate, I am a shareholder in both companies.

And, if you are as concerned as I am about electronic counterfeiting and its effects on the dynamic young companies that must fuel our country’s future growth (as well as your portfolio), I urge you to write your congressman. You can also register your concern with the National Association Against Naked Short Selling (http://www.nakedshortselling.com),, which is taking up the fight for companies and investors alike.

Sincerely,

James Davidson

-James Dale Davidson

Question,as an investor-sucker,do I have a right to know,even if only a ‘few shares’were exchanged for a ‘patent’,what the patent number is and how many shares ? Can anyone give me any feedback on that ?
The SEC certainly won’t.

James Dale Davidson ignored that query along with the one as to whether he still thought Clinton killed Davidson’s former employee,ex-CIA Chief Colby.

Thanks to Tony for pointing out it was “Joyce N”, not Mary Campbell”, whom Bob portrayed as a victim of naked shorting rather than of corrupt Nanopierce management. Same principle, different actor. As for Mary, if someone’s portfolio is cut in half because of problems with a single stock, calling it a portfolio is a misnomer. I sincerely hope Bob has counseled her to be more diversified instead of double up on Novastar.

My comments in reference to Professor Angel feeling misled were quotes from a Dow Jones article. Anyone who took the time to read his full letter to the SEC from which I quoted should now know how he truly feels about naked shortselling. It’s well worth reading regardless. When you do, you’ll see that all FTDs are not counterfeiting and fraud as Bob maintains is always the case.

- Jeff

Try this: Koko has an appetite for 10 apples a day. The company has authorized and issued enough apples so that she can get 10 apples per day for $1, her allowance. Then the bad hen comes along, and through a scheme, issues 20 apples a day for $1, even though hen doesn’t have any real apples – but everyone thinks that the IOU’s hen is selling are good for real apples.

Do you think Koko will pay $1 for 10 apples when hen says she can have 10 apples for 50 cents? No? What if hen says I can get you as many apples as you want for a dime? Will Koko pay $1 for 10 apples then?

Supply and demand. If you allow sellers to sell in excess of legitimate supply, then prices will fall – there is a glut of supply. This is simple math. Very, very simple math. You have to be very dim not to get it.

Very dim.

Hence my question – Jeff, are you that dim? Buying fraudulently created IOU’s doesn’t drive the price up. The equivalent on the buy side would be if you could just print money, or IOU’s for cash, and exchange those for legitimate shares – and you weren’t price sensitive. No limitation on creation of IOU’s to buy, limited number of shares.

Get it? It would drive the price up – a bidding war.

Printing shares or IOU’s or shares, the opposite effect. It drives the price down.

Your paragraph two would be a lot shorter if you simply abridged it to read: “I was wrong and confused the two women and companies.”

Your paragraph 3 would be more accurate if you rewrote it to say: “I have no idea what the entire comments Jim gave the film crew consisted of.” I do, however, as I have the transcript of his comments, and they do not differ materially from his filmed statements.

Quit while you are really, really behind, now.

Increasing the supply with a static demand reduces the price of the commodity. All women and companies are not the same. You have no idea what Jim actually said, merely some reporter’s second hand account of part of what he is alleged to have said.

That about covers it, I think.

You go to Farmer Fred’s Petting Zoo and see Harriet the horsie…

On second thought, I’m really only interested in educating the few people remaining who, for some odd reason, you’ve still managed to confuse. So let’s try again…

Say you (in the broad sense of the word) are a vendor set up outside the American Airlines Center selling limited edition Mavs t-shirts. Thanks to a great promotional announcement after an emotional Mavs win, the crowd is in a buying mood. Luckily you aren’t beholden to a price cap so you start inching up your prices. So well are the t-shirts selling, that you anticipate you will sell out before you have satisfied the demand. After thanking your lucky stars you weren’t a long-suffering Knicks fan like me, you call your supplier for help but, gasp, he just can’t get there before the crowds have all gone home. Now what?

As luck would have it again, you spot Barbara Eden in the crowd. With a blink of her eyes, she makes you the exact number of knock-off shirts you will need to satisfy the remaining people in line. Thank goodness you have not read Bob O’Brien’s definition of supply and demand so, of course, you continue to sell the knock-off shirts just like the real ones– at continued higher prices. You then ask Barbara to blink into her Jeanie costume using her 1960s body, but she tells you not to press your luck… but I digress.

Along strolls who else but Bob O’Brien! Bob just happened to have witnessed the creation of the knock-off shirts and starts lecturing you about how knock-offs increase supply and thus will depress your shirt price. You sloooowly try to explain to Bob that the *only* reason you made the knock-offs was in response to an increased demand you could not meet, not the other way around. In fact, if it makes him feel any better, you’ve already made plans to switch the knock-offs for real shirts when your next delivery comes in. Bob then demands to know what you will do if there are not enough authentic shirts left to make a complete switchover. Once again, you sloooowly explain that if demand continues to go up, so will the price, so shirt holders have nothing to worry about under that scenario. If shirt holders one day create selling pressure, you will simply retire whatever shirts you sell that were knock-offs. Simple as that.

But Bob is still confused and begins writing more stories about fuzzy farm animals. Zzzzzz…

- Jeff

Your list of reg sho companies. You dont know if the FTDs are longs or shorts. You have zero knowledge one way or the other.

Nor do you know if the FTDs are problem FTDs or not. Its also quite possible that all parties are fine with it. The buyer of the longs that were FTD’d might be fine with it.

There have been multiple times i have asked for delivery of stock i have purchased and it was FTDd for a period because it had been lent out. I didnt have a problem with it. Im sure other buyers might not as well

So how bad are the naked shorts hurting NFI and OSTK these days ?

And Im still waiting for the name of a new company whose CEO stands up and has a real case against naked shorts.

You must be able to find a new mouthpiece beyond Byrne ?

If not, why not ?