Does Platinum or J&J have any way of knowing what
Post# of 11803
(Total Views: 409)
Posted On: 05/07/2019 8:03:08 PM
Re: DirkEaston #7093
Does Platinum or J&J have any way of knowing what the accuracy numbers really look like for TBG?
I think yes, both know its coming, but I doubt they know how far along the product is. Lifescan had a similar product, but not as refined in 2011-2012, but could't put together the correct presentation to get past Obama FDA scrutiny. But all (most) will be known soon, probably very soon. There are two by the ways tonight:
1. The FDA maintains a clinical trials web site. The site is really for propeller heads since the FDA cannot force a company to post their trade secrets, and clinical testing is viewed as a trade secret. But as card carrying Obamakins FDA staff would do anything to further damage a small business if they could. Nonetheless, I know KB is choosing between seminars and week long technical meetings to discuss his TBG, so if I had to place a wager I would bet that KB will post just enough on the FDA clinical trials site to add more companies already than just the two already interested in TBG. IMO, competition is good no matter what penny traders and President Barrack tell you.
2. I was asked and agreed to review the data in summary form from the 3rd Party testing organization and it is spectacular. Two of us were asked, and my counterpart is probably the world's expert on glucose/glucose oxidase chemistry methods. KB originally thought the accuracy of TBG would be +/- 9% and with a lot of work, mostly because 9 is less than 10 and Roche is +/- 10.3%, but it appears that the final (commercial ready) version of TBG will be +/- 7.5%.
This is all neat stuff, but it is meaningless in the current DECN environment where everyone wants to sell and only cares about stock price. And the culmination of a man's career with a generational product doesn't mean squat. Give me my 3 cents and I'm outta here. Now why didn't I think of that.
I think yes, both know its coming, but I doubt they know how far along the product is. Lifescan had a similar product, but not as refined in 2011-2012, but could't put together the correct presentation to get past Obama FDA scrutiny. But all (most) will be known soon, probably very soon. There are two by the ways tonight:
1. The FDA maintains a clinical trials web site. The site is really for propeller heads since the FDA cannot force a company to post their trade secrets, and clinical testing is viewed as a trade secret. But as card carrying Obamakins FDA staff would do anything to further damage a small business if they could. Nonetheless, I know KB is choosing between seminars and week long technical meetings to discuss his TBG, so if I had to place a wager I would bet that KB will post just enough on the FDA clinical trials site to add more companies already than just the two already interested in TBG. IMO, competition is good no matter what penny traders and President Barrack tell you.
2. I was asked and agreed to review the data in summary form from the 3rd Party testing organization and it is spectacular. Two of us were asked, and my counterpart is probably the world's expert on glucose/glucose oxidase chemistry methods. KB originally thought the accuracy of TBG would be +/- 9% and with a lot of work, mostly because 9 is less than 10 and Roche is +/- 10.3%, but it appears that the final (commercial ready) version of TBG will be +/- 7.5%.
This is all neat stuff, but it is meaningless in the current DECN environment where everyone wants to sell and only cares about stock price. And the culmination of a man's career with a generational product doesn't mean squat. Give me my 3 cents and I'm outta here. Now why didn't I think of that.
(1)
(0)