I think that harpola was making a painful observation: The criteria that were laid out for evaluating other technologies weren't true for AsepticSure then ("approvals in place", hospital purchases), and aren't even true now, two years later.
IMO, this is a good example of management's tendency to make well-intentioned, but poorly-informed estimates of timelines. They had approval in Canada, and anticipated similar, speedy success in the US application to the EPA. They had sold units to C3, which had a service-based business plan which was hoped would involve health-care providers too. Could hospital purchases be far behind? But obviously it hasn't been so simple.
The one item which was true then was the scientific validation, which three years later still makes AS unique. We can only hope that the other two parts will finally fall into place.
