Replies to post #2218 on Micro Imaging Technology Inc (MMTC)

[ysung]

I asked this question to mmtc right after
webinar.

Total time to detecting virus is not much
different from existing methods as you
can see from slide but main advantage
is "cost basis" in which they can run mutiple
tests such as confirmation and evaluation
to issue alerts much quickly.

also overall much easier to run the tests
than conventional methods.

so bottom line was the cost factor which
does show big difference from others.

[Kgem]

marcello5, most companies currently send their samples to outside labs to reduce cost and their liability. Only the very largest organizations can afford fully staffed labs, and this is the problem. If a company must rely on outside labs for all their testing requirements, cost and time increase dramatically. Hence, the need for a low cost, rapid, reliable, and fully certified in house test. Initially, the MIT 1000 will not replace the need for outside labs. Instead, the MIT 1000 will be used as a preliminary test to identify the presence of food-borne pathogens. Companies can then move to isolate and prevent the spread of the contamination to the general public while lab tests are completed. Later, the MIT 1000, or some version of it may well expand to eliminate the need for outside testing all together. In this way, the money saved by preventing product recalls, and the subsequent lawsuits, are expected to more than compensate for equipment costs, and this is expected to greatly increase market penetration.


Kgem