HOPE or HYPE
I recently sent these questions to Bruce. I see some hope here in his response. You have to remember this guy can't disclose details of anything before the company publicly releases it. It looks like they are actually moving forward, be it ever so slow.
Maybe if they released some details on a regular basis investors might start to warm up to Medizone.
MY QUESTIONS
Right now, I have one big concern. Xenex and similar UV systems.
They are reporting great success in eliminating infections with a lower killing ability than Medizone. According to their literature, their touch surface cleaning approach is sufficient to eliminate infections. Their system takes only 8 minutes, fitting into the routine of a busy hospital. They are in numerous hospitals, all reporting good results. This product is being marketed by the biggest players in the industry.
Another inexpensive UV product developed by a hospital is permanently installed in operating rooms and goes on and off when people enter and leave the space. They have reported zero infections in two years on the job.
I would like to know how Medizone plans to sell against these guys. It would seem the advantage of log numbers and lab test results are going to be a hard sell with a 90 minute turnaround time vs 8 minutes.
I discussed this with a friend who is the CEO of one of our largest local hospitals. Based on the information currently available on both approaches, he sees little hope for Medizone to gain wide spread acceptance for everyday use in busy hospitals.
Very interested in your reply.
Hope to hear from you soon.
HIS RESPONSE
In response to constant questions and expressions of concern regarding competitor companies and products currently in the marketplace, it needs to be said that Medizone International fully recognizes the current status of its competitors. It also recognizes that there is a degree of angst (felt by Medizone shareholders) about the quick turnaround times touted by at least two of these competitor companies.
However, the constant company-generated hype surrounding the anticipated future sales prospects is just that, “hype”.
The CEO of XENEX, for example, stated in February of this year that “the device is now in two dozen hospitals”. The Company has been around for several years and actively selling XENEX technology for 18 months as of July 2012. Hardly a fearsome example of market penetration, especially when you consider that the US market alone is easily capable of absorbing in excess of 50,000 decontamination units of one sort or another.
Another thing to take into account is the $80,000 XENEX unit cost: While this is $15,000 cheaper than AsepticSure, the additional $14,400 per annum maintenance cost for XENEX quickly closes the pricing gap.
The issue then comes down “turnaround time” versus “efficacy”.
Quoting from the XENEX website: “Studies show that the XENEX room disinfection system is consistently 20 times more effective than standard chemical cleaning processes.” When you compare this non peer-reviewed data with the efficacy of AsepticSure (confirmed by the AJIC peer review process), you find that AsepticSure is 10,000 times more effective than standard chemical cleaning processes. That is a very significant difference!
Secondly, the notion that “hospitals simply won’t tolerate a 90 minute turnaround time” is pure fallacy. Just because "someone knows someone who knows someone who is a hospital CEO and they happen to express their opinion favoring "quick turnaround" over "highest possible efficacy", doesn't make that one person's opinion a reason to think that Asepticsure is doomed! NOTE: Dick Zoutman is Chief Of Staff of 4 hospitals under the Quinte Health banner and he of all people knows all too well what the majority of the medical world REALLY want when it comes to HAI reduction technology -- they want the best possible RESULTS!!!
Hospital CEO’s, Hospital-employed Heads of Infectious Diseases, and other influential personnel within North American hospitals have made it crystal clear to us (Medizone International) that the inherent risks (of pathogenic rejuvenation) associated with technologies only capable of 2.5 – 3 log kill rates make such “quick turnaround” technologies of limited interest to them.
A machine that is capable of a sustained >6 log kill rate on the other hand, is of such significance to health care personnel of this caliber, that they have repeatedly explained to us “how they would work around the 90 minute application time and leverage the additional efficacy to maximum effect”.
As stated in the June Chairman’s Letter, Medizone International anticipates announcing the commencement of an ‘extremely significant’ hospital trial (hopefully before the end of Q3). This will be no ordinary trial (hence the reason it has taken so long to plan) and, if successful as we expect it to be, will put the “efficacy” vs. “turnaround time” argument to bed for good.
