Blackhawks: AMBS's PR about the BD validation merely said it was positively confirmed. What most shareholders were looking for was the 96 and 98% specificity and sensitivity numbers, which the PR did not address. This was a failure in communication. Instead of it being a positive, the PR disappointed. That could have been handled better.
I get what the test was designed to establish, that it wasn't about duplicating an actual clinical patient trial but rather about confirming that the testing process was valid and reproducible.
But let's not kid ourselves, no one expected contradiction of %, lower % either.
Too many WERE expecting a BD/AMBS 'partenrship' announcement.
I didn't contribute to creating that expectation. Neither did Gerald.