In October, NuWire published an article called Investing in Health Scan Technology,” which included references to a company marketing health scan investments called Advanced Health Scan. Despite repeated attempts to contact them, Advanced Health Scan was unresponsive to our requests for further information or interviews. Mark Joyner recently submitted a letter in response to the article on behalf of Advanced Health Scan. Below is the letter, which has not been altered or edited by NuWire:
Elizabeth Smith wrote an article entitled “Investing in Health Scan Technology”, which was published by NuWire on April 15, 2007. In that article, Ms. Smith provided summary information regarding health scan technology. In fact, Ms. Smith writes that “health scan technology is a booming industry with a strong demand; medical scanning has proven to reveal health problems and noninvasive ways that allows for treatment before a traumatic event, such as a heart attack, occurs.” We agree with Ms. Smith’s analysis.
In that article Ms. Smith encourages prospective investors who are considering health scan investments should conduct thorough due diligence regarding the investment opportunity. We agree with Ms. Smith as there are promoters that are ready, willing, and able to take advantage of uninformed investors.
In that article, Ms. Smith writes that we have encountered problems with both the Pennsylvania Securities Commission and the Better Business Bureau (“BBB”) during the past couple of years. In 2005 a Pennsylvania resident, who represented to us that he was an accredited investor, requested materials and information regarding an investment in our program. In response to that request and, assuming that such resident was, in fact, an accredited investor, we provided that resident with the information requested. As it turns out, that resident was not an accredited investor.
The Pennsylvania Securities Commission determined that we had violated certain provisions of the Pennsylvania Securities Act of 1972 (the “1972 Act”) because of the manner by which we offered our investment opportunity to that Pennsylvania resident.
We have no need for investors residing in Pennsylvania. It is only one sate. Additionally, we resolved the matter with the Pennsylvania Securities Commission by paying $3,000.00 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which amount represents administrative assessment, administrative, and legal costs incurred by the Pennsylvania Securities Commission. Additionally, we were ordered by the Pennsylvania Securities Commission to cease and desist from violating the provisions of the 1972 Act. We believe that we have not violated the provisions of the 1972 Act after October 11, 2005, the date upon which the Pennsylvania Securities Commission issued that order. We have complied and continue to comply with that order.
Claim up to $26,000 per W2 Employee
- Billions of dollars in funding available
- Funds are available to U.S. Businesses NOW
- This is not a loan. These tax credits do not need to be repaid
We had no reason to believe that our communications with that Pennsylvania resident was a violation of the 1972 Act. In fact, in 2005 we relied on the advice of a securities lawyer in connection with the presentation of our investment opportunity. It is our belief that these types of actions complicate matters, and our investors should not be affected by these types of distractions. We regret any inconvenience to anyone affected by this matter.
In that article, Ms. Smith writes that angry and impatient investors have lodged complaint against us for failing to fulfill our agreements. We have two toll free telephone numbers which our investors can use to contact us and discuss our affairs, including these types of distractions. Those telephone numbers are 877-328-2322 and 877-520-0091. We encourage our investors to call us at either telephone number to discuss the various aspects of our business. We are not aware of any investors who have lodged complaints against us; and, moreover, in our opinion, we have not failed to fulfill our agreements. It is true that the completion of the projects that we anticipated has been delayed, but those delays are the result of events that are beyond our control.
In that article, Ms. Smith writes that we have failed to start our projects and that we have failed to return investments, which is according to the website of the BBB. We have, in fact, a facility that is now located at 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 140, Rancho Cucamonga, California. We acquired that facility in June 2007 and equipped that facility with MRI equipment upgrades and that equipment is completely operational.
Additionally, the CT area in that facility is now completed, and can be viewed on our website advhealthscan.com. The CT equipment is a 64-slice Toshiba, which we purchased and has a complete warranty. We anticipate that the installation of that CT equipment by Toshiba will be finished by December 22, 2007. The grand opening of that facility should be in early January, 2008.
In that article, Ms. Smith writes that there was hope the Anaheim location would prove to be an actual scanning center that would indicate that we have opened a facility successfully. Our Anaheim location was our business office and was never intended to be a scanning facility. As a result of our success, we outgrew that facility and moved from that Anaheim location.
In that article, Ms. Smith writes that the webpage for the BBB indicates that we are not a member of the BBB and, in fact, we received an “F” score from the BBB. The BBB’s webpage is inaccurate. We joined the BBB on July 7, 2007, and our member number is 100027775. Additionally, the BBB created a record for us on February 22, 2006. We paid our appropriate BBB membership fees on April 4, 2005 ($450.00) and April 13, 2005 ($110.00). This can be verified by visiting the website of the advhealthscan.com/bbbid. The user identification is bigger, and the password is business.
We assume that when Ms. Smith wrote that article, she believed, in good faith, that we were not a member of the BBB and had, in fact, received an “F” score from the BBB. We have made numerous attempts to resolve this matter with the BBB, but the BBB was and remains particularly obtuse and uncooperative regarding this matter. The attitude and policies of the BBB notwithstanding, we have developed or acquired several facilities.
In that article, Ms. Smith writes that NuWire had difficulty getting answers from us. We regret that NuWire had difficulty getting information from us, as we are ready, willing, and able to provide NuWire with information regarding our facilities and operations.
In that article, Ms. Smith writes that scanning technology is legitimate. Again, we agree with Ms. Smith’s analysis.
Beginning a new business in an industry as relatively new as medical scanning is always difficult. Our experiences are no different. In the course of planning, developing, and completing our facilities, we have encountered numerous situations which we did not anticipate, which required the attention of some of our resources, and which delayed the development, building, finishing, and equipping our facilities. We have, however, been diligent and resolved most of the issues which we have encountered in opening our facilities.
In summary, we invite anyone, including Ms. Smith and those persons who may have read her article, to visit our facilities and make their own determination regarding the status of our affairs. We appreciate the patience that our investors have demonstrated with us, and we look forward to exciting things in the future, which should provide the returns to our investors that they deserve. Of course, we welcome questions or comments regarding our status or operations. Thank you.
Mr. Mark Joyner