(Total Views: 390)
Posted On: 08/27/2021 3:31:52 PM
Post# of 22465
DRX, I agree with you on the viability of QMC and POCT.
First, Squires was researching QD POCT over 10 years ago. He went so far as looking to acquire patents at that time.
The problem with using QD in POCT, as with many biomed projects, is both the stability of the QD and the shelf life. QDX solves both problems.
The sensitivity of the QD based tests blow the competition away and make possible much more reliability in the test results.
As I said yesterday, I have no idea what Pasaca is thinking, but if they backed out wouldn't a big Pharma be interested in backing POCT QD development?
Many biomeds, and there may be over 3000 companies right now, are developing biomarkers that would be the subject of a new test to find a disease, and a more sensitive QD-based test that's part of a POCT that could be done in a doctor's office with results in minutes would be an attractive proposition to them, as it is to the unnamed Canadian company.
First, Squires was researching QD POCT over 10 years ago. He went so far as looking to acquire patents at that time.
The problem with using QD in POCT, as with many biomed projects, is both the stability of the QD and the shelf life. QDX solves both problems.
The sensitivity of the QD based tests blow the competition away and make possible much more reliability in the test results.
As I said yesterday, I have no idea what Pasaca is thinking, but if they backed out wouldn't a big Pharma be interested in backing POCT QD development?
Many biomeds, and there may be over 3000 companies right now, are developing biomarkers that would be the subject of a new test to find a disease, and a more sensitive QD-based test that's part of a POCT that could be done in a doctor's office with results in minutes would be an attractive proposition to them, as it is to the unnamed Canadian company.
(0)
(0)
