NanoLogix Inc (NNLX)

[fulcrumgavel]

hmm the problem is not related with accuracy, the problem is the tests specificity. You need to pass both metrics to have a good test, not just one or the other, in isolation the metrics are not enough.

For example you say you can guess which side the dice will land on every time with 100% accuracy, but you guess all 6 sides.. it doesn't mean squat.. following here?


But if we search for GBS.

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/3/417.full.pdf

GBS, sensitivity of 98.5%, specificity of 99.6%, now that's what I call a good test result. yes yes I know it's PCR. Blah blah.. you think there is a high demand for rapid live culture GBS antibiotic testing? hmm no. Especially when they could use the control test and wait a little bit longer to get the seam non time sensitive data (testing this takes a lot of time partially negating the advantage of rapid testing... and effort and especially resources (doesn't make sense to spend that kind of dough when the results are not even very accurate it would be a huge headache and expense)).

There is a demand for rapid GBS diagnostics (PCR) .. but cultures, not so much, (especially at this specificity rate, maybe story would change if it was 99%) now maybe rapid cultures in other areas will be good for highly specific defense applications. Or if they can get a machine to carry it out with better specificity.. than I will be impressed.

Now the results could vary if the process is modified or upon testing other types of bacteria, but why did nano choose to spearhead this initiative as their lead.. when the results are poor and not aligned with market demand. This was a significant effort with Faro ect, this was practically the banner to follow on which the chips were placed. Was this there best chance? If it was.. and the other tests are even poorer.. than it's not looking good.