Two comments to your post Jenn...
"I would assume that Vmed has prevented errors. I would not expect anyone to admit specifics on record."
MP claimed it is documented, therefore on record. If those records are unobtainable, don't say it.
Although he claimed Valimed has "saved lives" and that errors have been documented, I don't remember if he specifically stated that the "live saving errors" were documented.
I seriously doubt it, especially with MP's track record for clever wording that suggests something which later turns out to have been totally deceptive. I believe at this point it is clear to everyong that when something can be stated plain and simple without ambiguity, yet MP continues the same deceptive writting style, it is intentional.
MalSpeak.
"I am more concerned with omissions in his spiel.. never was real time emphasized as a feature of our applications...nor their size/convenience /portability/expandability(the USE of signatures)... these are real features and sellingpoints for consumers as well as investors(individual or VC, whatever)."
Jenn, with todays computing speed, 30-60 seconds can hardly be considered real time. But even if the "enhanced" Valimed has reduced the shoot time, it is irrelevant when the bottleneck lies in the preparation of the sample for testing.
I believe it is for this reason that Valimed will never be useful in a busy pharmacy environment has described by "dssu..." on the TCL board. Valimed will remain viable for its targeted niche market as a supplemental QA tool for high-risk, compounded, IV medications.
It may still wow health care professionals working within that niche, but it's never going to make Drumbah rich! LOL
AI
