All,
They following is of course my opinion and is not addressed with any PARTICULAR individuals in mind:
There are some who will never stop criticizing some imaginary shortcoming of Nanologix, no matter what.
You can patent anything? I doubt it.
No petri plate sales? No interest in flatpack preservation? If so, how has Nanologix survived with such little dilution? They must have revenue, even if they don't release their financial statements.
Knowing people in Ireland with Medtronic, I know Nanologix absolutely was involved with providing their N-Assay technology, for payment over more than a year to Medtronic. The Medtronic QA QC people spoke of it.
There was a mention from some wind source that some old technology was being proposed for COVID 19 detection, when every mention of the technology clearly stated this was a novel technology invented sometime in early April, with a patent just filed in May. The patent for the N-Assay is a granted patent and dates back to 2014, according to information listed on the I-Hub site. One company update issued in May specifically stated this novel virus assay is not the N-Assay.
The old fallback to criticizing fast petri plate detection? I remember references to development of the N-Assay precisely because their BNP and BNF technologies were respectively, not specific enough, although fast, for the BNP; and too subjective for the BNF color reading, in addition to neither being computer friendly for recording results.
The flatpack petri plate technology is not their old BNP petri plate technology. That was the technology with a coated membrane and rapid detection of microcolonies. Flatpacks are just a better way for shipping and storage of a petri plate and apparently the long term shelf life determination was accomplished by Battelle with the evidence in the Battelle peer reviewed and published research paper, also available publicly. Why continue to misstate and portray one as the other?
The N-Assay addressed all those faults. The FACT that the medical industry chose to obsess with PCR mixed detection results over actual live/dead microbial detection of culture or ELISA and virus detection exclusively with ELISA is not the fault of Nanologix or any other company with alternatives to PCR. Do you know how PCR has been historically used for just bacteria is that one grows a sample on a culture (petri) plate for 24 hours, then one does a 'pick' of the live cells and runs them through PCR amplification against a specific probe type to determine their identity? For viruses, a specific probe must be manufactured and any slight mutation of the virus means the probe is ineffective. In addition, the probe with detect dead viral particles as live virus. That is the HUGE problem occurring with the vastly widespread false positive readings. PCR is not a POC diagnostic and those here who decry the Nanologix approach are criticizing the one technology that has the capability to save their own lives. Talk it down, try to put them out of business by chasing people away with alarmism, innuendo and deliberate misstatements. I believe that attempt will fail. I'll buy more shares.
EI
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
