Member Info for 11712271

Bob,

And to finish my thought, I am not Frank, unequivocally not!!

Uncle Bob "T"

Bob, you still infer way too much. First, not one of my posts was "ANTI- TSP" I was asking a question of the then CEO and BOD. My comments were in fact anti- lack of communication.

Now on to the next inference in your latest verbal diarrhea, you are attempting to "infer" that I am posting under the moniker 11712271 but in fact I am Frank and that "I am happy with TSP now that I am getting a pay check and back on board" and that belief was reached because I stopped posting! If you must know, I stopped posting because unlike you, I don't entertain conspiracy theories and have no need to constantly beat the drum of negativity and disdain. To my satisfaction (which is all that matters to me) I am confident that the current CEO and BOD is headed in the right direction and am willing to give it the time necessary to succeed. You are way to tiring...

2 things- First, I'm glad to see that you're admitting that TSP is still a listed company in contrast to your earlier post. 2ndly, it's nice that you agree with something I stated as far as being an acquisition target, that is up to the end where once again, Mr. Rogers neighborhood had to surface again.

Good information on the FDA- makes one pause for a slight moment but lacks the staying power of convincing me. As with any regulatory process, there are many hurdles, false starts, re-works etc, that is part of evolution and a reason that med tech doesn't happen overnight. To articulate what you have it is obvious that you have either done your research and are able to synthesize the FDA rules and regulations OR you have many years in the space either i engineering or sales as that is how it reads. I at this juncture think that latter is most probably the most likely. I also feel that the point of Uncle Bob's postings is to continue to bash a company that in the eyes of many has turned the corner and will eventually meet their goals. In the past, there have been many keyboard warriors (KBW) with an axe to grind and this is very similar. As Uncle Bob didn't appear on the TSP scene as Uncle Bob until June 17th and has yet to have a positive comment, I may be sol bold as to suggest that Uncle Bob is the re-incarnation of a former warrior. I understand there are past KBW's that are legally prohibited from saying anything publicly about the company so perhaps my assertion may be correct.

I still believe the devices will make it to market and will live up to all the promise id did in the beginning. Again, I implore all to do their own research- don't just accept the mal contents that need to inject conspiratorial negativism. I await the next re-birth of Uncle Bob to someone else , perhaps to coincide with the release of Jurassic Park- The Rebirth on July 2nd-- would be a fitting date based on all the negativities given to disruptive technology and not the dinosaurs of screws and plates. Who knows, it may be a new color also!!

Simply put, it is very rare over the past several years to have any medical device acquired prior to being revenue generating.

I am aware that TSP never traded on Nexus, my point was that the link you posted listed Nexus as the listed exchange for TSP, the link I posted was to show that Truspine is still listed by the FDA. It is certainly plausible to think that at some p[oint along the way, there was a "paper-work" foul-up that was corrected by the de-listing highlighted in your post. As I previously stated, this would be a material change in the company requiring the FDA to delist. The important point is that as of this morning (US time) Truspine is still listed by the FDA and was never de-listed. The inference that I believe you are trying to make is that the company and its products are just a sham which isn't the case. As far as the regulatory pathway- presumably by your post, you are knowledgeable in the FDA regulatory process and again trying to infer that the company has no way forward. Again, simply not the case and just stinks of an attempt at axe-grinding sabotage.

Disruptive technology can and does obtain FDA clearance without the path you are outline for shock value.

I am an investor, not large but do understand the technology space.

Https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/sda/sdDetailNavigation.cfm?sd=srolist&id=3880D9BAD8375CE4E0631C98C30A31FC&rownum=1

TSP is still listed as of a few minutes ago with the Aquis exchanged noted on the listing. The link you posted shows the Nexus exchange which was acquired by Aquis. This would require a de-listing due to a material change in the company and lead to a re-listing under the new exchange as it appears has happened.

\

Happy to give elaborate on my thoughts. First off,, I don't discount that there have been failures however those failures have been IMHO failures of the business side and not the clinical/engineering and concept side. I care not to re-hash the "business" failures- as I believe they have been outlined and discussed for several years. I will state however that one of the greatest failures however though is the unrealistic time-lines for all investors reaping a benefit to their investment. These timelines were put forth by those advisors that had no clue in the life cycle of medical device development and path to market.

That said, the "wins" I believe are significant and those who understand the Development of a medical device, I believe would agree that these are wins, some more significant than others but still wins. 1st we have design freeze- this is when the device is "finished" with the engineers and ready for the extensive bio-mechanical testing required by the FDA, so yes this milestone is a big win. 2ndly- the biomedical testing was determined to be far superior to all existing devices by one of the most world renown Bio-mechanical testing labs in the world. The outcome of this testing determines many things- does it meet minimum standards, does it need to go back to the engineers for re-design of some part or the entire device OR worst case- not even a re-design of the device will it work the way intended. In the case of the Cervi-lok, it passed all bio-mechanical testing with superior results- another huge win. There is significant past and current validation of the device and concept of surgeons ( as recently as a spine conference in Chicago June 18-21) where it was discussed with several re-known spine surgeons. Negates the rhetoric that it is outdated technology. The packaging design is at design freeze and will meet all the standards required to validate and market- again no small undertaking.

There is no argument that failures have occurred, but the device, the concept and the disruptive potential is as strong now as they were in the beginning. Finances in a medical device start-up are generally problematic which unfortunately slows things down to a crawl and that may sour investment and/or investors however it doesn't negate or lessen the potential of disruptive technology. The TP ship I believe has been righted and I believe all will see positive movement in the days ahead.

I find one quote sums up medical device development " Some of the greatest achievements are done in the dark" There is a lot that goes on to get a device to the point of FDA approval and to market, not all is evident to all.

I do believe it prudent to not judge the future by the past!

I understand the angst of many who have watched TSP over the years and are weary of their investment, not only monetarily but in time and effort, I really do. Today's announcement regarding Bitcoin, is yet another evolution in a team trying to get to the finish line. We all joined the TSP family( either as an investor or a doer) because the potential reward for what had at the time been billed as "DISRUPTIVE" technology. Disruptive is still the operative word in the TSP life-cycle.

There is sporadic "chat-bot" opinions on this site about the failed company (yes, there have been failures- yet there have been wins also) this failures IMHO have been caused and propagated by those who lacked vision, vision not only for the reality of med tech development but an understanding of the life cycle of such. Med tech is a long road and unfortunately many of the past players led many to believe that rewards would be great and urn around would be short. That is simply not the case. Nay sayers say the technology is outdated. Oxford defines outdated as obsolete. This is simply not the case. DSIRUPTIVE however is defined as " a radical changes to an existing market or industry due to technological innovation. Make no mistake, DISRUPTIVE is exactly what TSP devices are!

All one must do is go to any website of any spinal technology company : Medtronic, Globus, DePuy Synthes, NanoHive and the list goes on. Look at their products, they are all the same- different colors, different manufacturing, different materials, different sales approaches, different configurations but at the end of the road, they offer nothing substantially different, they are "ME TO PRODUCTS"

TSP devices are STILL the only true innovation in the pipeline and that innovation is what will make Cervi-Lok and the other TSP devices disruptive. Go to the websites and look for yourself. Compare the pictorial representations of the vast ocean of "Like and similar" devices, note the differences and note the pitches, there is no innovation. Try and find 1 device that has truly disrupted the market- you won't. Cervi-Lok still has that potential. The "other" devices on the market remain the same year in and year out in a substantive way and have been for the past 40 odd years. Yes they may have a new surface design that adds something, a new color, a new "screw" yet it is still " me too! Do your research with an open mind and critical eye about the technology, not missteps of the past.

The life cycle of a med tech company is 7-10 years, idea to market in most cases. IMHO, with disruptive technology it may be longer. The TSP devices can and will be the DISRUPTION that others will be there to make in a different color, different manufacturing process, different material but WE will be the DISRUPTER not the "ME TOO Follower".

I am happy with what I am seeing and urge all to do their own research about device VALUE and not just buy into the "old and obsolete being spewed by so

It was posted on 9/30 with a link on the 1st page of the final results

Perhaps the totality of ownership should be looked at, who the patent was originally issued to and whether or not all inventors signed/assigned or otherwise disposed of their interests as is alleged by the corporate crooks. Should anyone bother to investigate properly, its evident that TS owns nothing but debt and bad will amongst shareholders

It certainly befuddles me that most critical question is not and has not been answered in any proof positive form. The news offered as the beacon on a hill of a thievery is nothing but sound bytes with the illusion that all is headed forward. "TS owns the IP" Paperwork has been filed with the FDA and on and on, yet no proof of anything is ever produced. I have a simple question- who unequivocally and irrefutably owns the IP? Simple question- simple to answer!