So why can't I find any reference to Cx Bladder in the article?
Printable View
No direct reference that I can see either but it does say "safer, non-invasive and accurate diagnostic tests".
Cx Bladder qualifies on all three counts.
Its a bit like the inclusion in the NCCN guidelines earlier as " Urine tumor marker testing" "Your doctor may consider doing this testing in the first 2 years after treatment"
Cx Bladder again qualifies as a Urine tumor marker test
I have been thinking about this and trying to evaluate the dribbles of information that we get from time to time, in a rational manner, as far as that is possible.
Here is my logic - if a substantial org in the health sector is to adopt new technology, I would assume 2 conditions would need to be met in order to get it across the line
1. Significant falsifiable evidence that the existing tech is not up to scratch (IE could be improved upon)
2. Significant falsifiable evidence that there is an alternative tech which is measurably, and cost effectively better
If we can agree that #2 has been shown to be true in the case of CX bladder, then said orgs would then need to fulfill the first condition, prior to the adoption of the new tech.
My re-reading several times of this release suggests to me that the first condition has now also been met by this study - a study that was possibly conducted in direct response to the evidence already provided regarding #2.
Conclusion - I agree with the statement 'All this time they have been busy getting their facts'.
Its as much fun as watching grass grow in slow motion though :D:D
DISC: Holder, accumulator.
Good analysis Drew
Item 2 I would add safer as well.
A study that finds the existing tech in some instances is creating other cancers as well as locating the originals has to be pinpointing a serious shortcoming.
Agree with the glacial pace but given the size of the study much work has gone into it.
Its a great shame the Study participants (Kaiser et al) were unable to adhere to time frames set out for them by unconnected invisible third parties in remote countries.:)
I am sure Balance will shortly disabuse any of us who are foolish enough to believe the quoted paper is grounds for hope.
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/333560
Announced April he was joining
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/342056
He leaves 5 months later, holding 900k shares.
Whats going on?
Taken in conjunction with the CFO's recent resignation it looks very bad.
Duncan was a square peg in a round hole - he's one of George Cur's 'mates'.......and he can sell his holdings anytime without notification to the market as he is no longer required to report
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz's
Might be a good move - his skills as a purported M&A expert isn't now going to be needed.
Time will tell...
Well, I remember having a decent chat with Kate at an AGM not long after she joined and I remember commenting to my wife (who was also present at the time) that she came across as a typical "boring" Accountant. Not wanting to upset any Accountant's - just being honest!
Recommended viewing if you are not an accountant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAOQH4xEyhM
I know someone who is pretty good at numbers especially when there are 10's of thousands of them.
:eek2:
Apologies for my previous post Winner ;)...on second thoughts, you were probably referring to the assumption there are a lot of Accountants who get bored now - due to "counting so few beans".
A large number of them keenly assisted Xero in becoming a corporate star and, probably unwittingly (maybe unknowingly?), effectively created the partial demise of their own profession. I suspect a lot of the bored ones have already left for greener pastures. The ones who are left seem to be diversifying into business advisers, financial consultants and the like.