Red: I think you are right about Nanosomix's "case

Red: I think you are right about Nanosomix's "case control study" not being as rigorous and reliable as the "cohort study" that Amarantus did on Lympro. I think their "case control study" is a good start, but it's accuracy is not dependable until they do the more reliable "cohort study."

The only investors in Nanosomix are the BOD (for the most part) and I suspect they were worried that if Lympro launched first and had a year or two on them to market that their product might never catch on. (And they'd lose their investment) So, they decided to launch their product based on only a preliminary kind of test so they could launch at the same time with LymPro.

But why, if their test is so solid, didn't they get a Lab like ICON or Quest or someone more reputable that pharmas would have respect for? Because they knew that respectable Labs wouldn't partner with them based on their lack of rigorous testing!! Thus, they picked Pan Laboratories that has only been around a little over a year, has very little business, and only 3 employees.

They know their chances of attracting pharmas isn't as good as if they did the more rigorous testing first, but they were desperate and ran out of time, because LymPro was going to be First To Market!! But they are a small company and figure even if they attract a few more investors and get a small portion of the AD clinical trial business.....that was the best play they had!!

They probably have a decent test, but it doesn't have the credible testing behind it to compete with LymPro....IMHO.