Ray,
Machiavelli isn't being funny, he's addressing concerns that are common.
You state: "you should never assume anything", then state: "In two weeks all will know if this is a go or not". Please research the definition of "assume" and get back to me.
Here's what I do know --- in two weeks the N-Assay technology will have been presented at the annual meeting for CAOG, the organization for the central US for Obstetricians and Gynecologists. What I ASSUME is that the attendees who view the presentation will then have a new technology to analyze and consider based upon multiple potential attributes. All of these should be related to their areas of specialization in OB/Gyn and the benefits to their practices and patients. It is a given that there will also be representatives of hospital groups, the medical insurance industry, and technology suppliers present. That's what happens at any event of this type.
Considering the broad range of bacteria (not number, but diversity of type) demonstrated as detectable in the released provisional PDF study, it would be no surprise to have some attendees looking at applications outside OB/Gyn.
I expect the presentations will result in interest in FDA trials to confirm the potential for clinical use.
You can assume whatever you like on who will be analyzing what, but my experience from attending medical conferences (more than forty) leads me to state that the least considered attribute of any company with existing established technology, or one with new technology that may be considered "disruptive" in its impact, is share price.
That said, the CAOG annual meeting should have an impact on price over the following months after and if the attendees decide the N-Assay should or could ultimately become the test of choice for their use and they convey that fact to others.
It's unrealistic to assume that the first medical conference where this technology is presented suddenly results in dollars per share appreciation.
Scott
Machiavelli isn't being funny, he's addressing concerns that are common.
You state: "you should never assume anything", then state: "In two weeks all will know if this is a go or not". Please research the definition of "assume" and get back to me.
Here's what I do know --- in two weeks the N-Assay technology will have been presented at the annual meeting for CAOG, the organization for the central US for Obstetricians and Gynecologists. What I ASSUME is that the attendees who view the presentation will then have a new technology to analyze and consider based upon multiple potential attributes. All of these should be related to their areas of specialization in OB/Gyn and the benefits to their practices and patients. It is a given that there will also be representatives of hospital groups, the medical insurance industry, and technology suppliers present. That's what happens at any event of this type.
Considering the broad range of bacteria (not number, but diversity of type) demonstrated as detectable in the released provisional PDF study, it would be no surprise to have some attendees looking at applications outside OB/Gyn.
I expect the presentations will result in interest in FDA trials to confirm the potential for clinical use.
You can assume whatever you like on who will be analyzing what, but my experience from attending medical conferences (more than forty) leads me to state that the least considered attribute of any company with existing established technology, or one with new technology that may be considered "disruptive" in its impact, is share price.
That said, the CAOG annual meeting should have an impact on price over the following months after and if the attendees decide the N-Assay should or could ultimately become the test of choice for their use and they convey that fact to others.
It's unrealistic to assume that the first medical conference where this technology is presented suddenly results in dollars per share appreciation.
Scott
6
1
