This is what Gerald said in this 8K from 04/29/14 about the G-Town assay, very interesting if you ask me:
"Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jason Nakadano with Vax. Please proceed with your question.
<Q>: Hi, this is David. I’m actually filling in for Jason today. I have a couple of questions, first about LymPro. The Alzheimer’s disease blood
test that’s being developed by the Georgetown and Rochester group that made a pretty big splash in the media in March, I was just wondering
if you can give investors a sense of how you think this product compares with LymPro. We’ve looked at the data briefly and it looks to be
similar accuracy, LymPro may be a little bit better, but it’s kind of hard to quantify at this point. But just what were your thoughts on that?
Gerald Commissiong – President and Chief Executive Officer
Look, I mean, I spoke about [indiscernible] after all that came out. It certainly is the result of a long history of work that actually started, I
believe, out of Rochester.
Dr. David Lowe
I believe so, yes.
Gerald Commissiong – President and Chief Executive Officer
At Rochester University several years ago they looked at a number of different systems, and ended up with this panel of lipids. I think it was
good science from a process standpoint. There’s no real significant relationship necessarily to disease biology, but it’s good work. Now, with
that being said, we don’t necessarily feel it’s anywhere near as translatable on a mass scale as LymPro, and certainly from a commercial
standpoint it’s several years behind it.
From a data standpoint as far as efficacy [indiscernible] and within the diagnostic paradigm, the specificity and sensitivity, we feel as though
we have certainly comparable, if not better, data. And as time goes on, certainly with some of these studies that we have planned now and
specific designs that we’re taking into account because of some of these things that we are seeing come out, we think we can really put a nail to
establish LymPro as the first test.
And we think that’s really important, the first test that has a specific relationship to disease biology from a mechanistic standpoint, because as
many of you know, first to market generally wins the prize. And if we can come out with something that shows high sensitivity and specificity,
even if it’s relatively similar to other things, if we get there first and we start to get real uptake, especially with pharma companies, that
translates into publications, publications translate into additional interest, additional interest translates into orders.
So, we have a very specific step wise approach to make sure that, one, in the community we’re not blowing smoke and having a whole lot of
hype behind something until the data’s there to support it. We feel as though we have a strong data set now, and it’s continuing to improve, and
the KOL that we’re working with to understand that, and as long as everybody understands that we’re moving step by step by step it certainly
seems to be very accessible to every KOL we’ve spoken to. One of the important things that we see as this process goes on is that there’s been
a lot of missteps in the Alzheimer’s space, a lot of promise that a lot of people haven’t delivered on, so we want to make sure that as we move
forward we don’t end up with false steps that could sully the asset.
http://www.fool.com/p/60/www.motleyfoolp.idma...adType=pdf
Guess they changed their mind...
"Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jason Nakadano with Vax. Please proceed with your question.
<Q>: Hi, this is David. I’m actually filling in for Jason today. I have a couple of questions, first about LymPro. The Alzheimer’s disease blood
test that’s being developed by the Georgetown and Rochester group that made a pretty big splash in the media in March, I was just wondering
if you can give investors a sense of how you think this product compares with LymPro. We’ve looked at the data briefly and it looks to be
similar accuracy, LymPro may be a little bit better, but it’s kind of hard to quantify at this point. But just what were your thoughts on that?
Gerald Commissiong – President and Chief Executive Officer
Look, I mean, I spoke about [indiscernible] after all that came out. It certainly is the result of a long history of work that actually started, I
believe, out of Rochester.
Dr. David Lowe
I believe so, yes.
Gerald Commissiong – President and Chief Executive Officer
At Rochester University several years ago they looked at a number of different systems, and ended up with this panel of lipids. I think it was
good science from a process standpoint. There’s no real significant relationship necessarily to disease biology, but it’s good work. Now, with
that being said, we don’t necessarily feel it’s anywhere near as translatable on a mass scale as LymPro, and certainly from a commercial
standpoint it’s several years behind it.
From a data standpoint as far as efficacy [indiscernible] and within the diagnostic paradigm, the specificity and sensitivity, we feel as though
we have certainly comparable, if not better, data. And as time goes on, certainly with some of these studies that we have planned now and
specific designs that we’re taking into account because of some of these things that we are seeing come out, we think we can really put a nail to
establish LymPro as the first test.
And we think that’s really important, the first test that has a specific relationship to disease biology from a mechanistic standpoint, because as
many of you know, first to market generally wins the prize. And if we can come out with something that shows high sensitivity and specificity,
even if it’s relatively similar to other things, if we get there first and we start to get real uptake, especially with pharma companies, that
translates into publications, publications translate into additional interest, additional interest translates into orders.
So, we have a very specific step wise approach to make sure that, one, in the community we’re not blowing smoke and having a whole lot of
hype behind something until the data’s there to support it. We feel as though we have a strong data set now, and it’s continuing to improve, and
the KOL that we’re working with to understand that, and as long as everybody understands that we’re moving step by step by step it certainly
seems to be very accessible to every KOL we’ve spoken to. One of the important things that we see as this process goes on is that there’s been
a lot of missteps in the Alzheimer’s space, a lot of promise that a lot of people haven’t delivered on, so we want to make sure that as we move
forward we don’t end up with false steps that could sully the asset.
http://www.fool.com/p/60/www.motleyfoolp.idma...adType=pdf
Guess they changed their mind...
