All, This repost of two updates is in response
Post# of 9144
(Total Views: 409)
Posted On: 04/03/2020 7:39:33 AM
All,
This repost of two updates is in response to the “all or nothing “ posts of the usual suspects on this board. NanoLogix promised nothing in the updates and they were posted as updates with numerous caveats, including how they were approached and how they have no control over the process, other than a licensing arrangement of some sort should their technology be determined to be an effective test. My read on what’s been announced to date by FDA and various media and companies is that none of them are anything other than PCR or LFA with varying claims of speed but not necessarily sensitivity. None are revealing the percentages of false positives and false negatives, which, from actual and anecdotal evidence here and in other hospitals, is occurring at an unacceptable rate. My understanding of the N-Assay’s results for other pathogens is that false readings are minimal if any. The usual suspects are rapacious predators with no interest in what’s been written in updates other than to excerpt the words “government/CoVid19/ test” and excise the words “approached/proposal/if/should that happen/sole participation on an IP basis...”
Scott
“Last week the Company was contacted by a respected U.S. Government Contractor regarding our N-Assay Technology and its potential Coronavirus (COVID-19) testing capabilities.
We were informed by the contractor that they will bear all costs of configuration and testing of the N-Assay at their facilities. Following the conversation, NanoLogix sent a letter agreeing in principle to the proposal, which was rapidly acknowledged, and is awaiting a formal agreement from the contractor.
NanoLogix will not be supplying any materials or personnel for this process and our sole participation is on an Intellectual Property (Patent) basis, stemming from the N-Assay patent issued in 2015.
We will not be involved in the potential production of test kits if the contractor determines from the testing that N-Assay kits should be used in the fight against this Coronavirus. Should that happen, it would be done by a recognized producer under license.
We are hopeful that the N-Assay and one additional Point-of Care test we are developing will be useful tools for rapid detection of any pathogens that are threats to health.
While we believe our technology could be used to develop a rapid test for the Coronavirus, based upon preliminary development work done for detection of proteins associated with Ebola in 2014, we do not have the resources to pursue development of a Coronavirus rapid test. There are a small number of BioSafety Level 4 labs in the US (4+/-) where development work on dangerous viruses can be done and their calendars are booked months to years in advance with daily costs that can run into tens of thousands of dollars. The Coronavirus may be a short-lived phenomenon that is no longer an issue within a few months; there are other tests that exist that may deliver reliable results in a few hours or a day, and while a test we develop may potentially deliver results in minutes, it may not be viewed as worthwhile in a cost:benefit analysis by various agencies or institutions.”
This repost of two updates is in response to the “all or nothing “ posts of the usual suspects on this board. NanoLogix promised nothing in the updates and they were posted as updates with numerous caveats, including how they were approached and how they have no control over the process, other than a licensing arrangement of some sort should their technology be determined to be an effective test. My read on what’s been announced to date by FDA and various media and companies is that none of them are anything other than PCR or LFA with varying claims of speed but not necessarily sensitivity. None are revealing the percentages of false positives and false negatives, which, from actual and anecdotal evidence here and in other hospitals, is occurring at an unacceptable rate. My understanding of the N-Assay’s results for other pathogens is that false readings are minimal if any. The usual suspects are rapacious predators with no interest in what’s been written in updates other than to excerpt the words “government/CoVid19/ test” and excise the words “approached/proposal/if/should that happen/sole participation on an IP basis...”
Scott
“Last week the Company was contacted by a respected U.S. Government Contractor regarding our N-Assay Technology and its potential Coronavirus (COVID-19) testing capabilities.
We were informed by the contractor that they will bear all costs of configuration and testing of the N-Assay at their facilities. Following the conversation, NanoLogix sent a letter agreeing in principle to the proposal, which was rapidly acknowledged, and is awaiting a formal agreement from the contractor.
NanoLogix will not be supplying any materials or personnel for this process and our sole participation is on an Intellectual Property (Patent) basis, stemming from the N-Assay patent issued in 2015.
We will not be involved in the potential production of test kits if the contractor determines from the testing that N-Assay kits should be used in the fight against this Coronavirus. Should that happen, it would be done by a recognized producer under license.
We are hopeful that the N-Assay and one additional Point-of Care test we are developing will be useful tools for rapid detection of any pathogens that are threats to health.
While we believe our technology could be used to develop a rapid test for the Coronavirus, based upon preliminary development work done for detection of proteins associated with Ebola in 2014, we do not have the resources to pursue development of a Coronavirus rapid test. There are a small number of BioSafety Level 4 labs in the US (4+/-) where development work on dangerous viruses can be done and their calendars are booked months to years in advance with daily costs that can run into tens of thousands of dollars. The Coronavirus may be a short-lived phenomenon that is no longer an issue within a few months; there are other tests that exist that may deliver reliable results in a few hours or a day, and while a test we develop may potentially deliver results in minutes, it may not be viewed as worthwhile in a cost:benefit analysis by various agencies or institutions.”
(5)
(1)