PEB - Pacific Edge Ltd

[Balance]

You have absolutely no idea what Kates' reasons are for leaving and are merely attributing your thoughts onto her.

And as far as soldering on is concerned, things seem to be in a state of flux.

Logic & simple common sense.

Something which seems to have gone missing with some posters here.

Several tens of thousands of tests?

Dodgy accounting?

Kaiser deal anytime now?

Pathetic.

[RTM]

I sold my shares in PEB sometime ago. At a considerable loss. It would have been worse if I retained them. (101c->36c)
Balances' and others contributors comments on sharetrader are one factor in making that decision.
I thank them for their comments and their continual warnings on here for new shareholders.
I would say that you ignore them at your peril.
And I really want PEB to succeed Great industry for NZ. But me keeping my shares was not going to help that.
Take care everyone. Capital needs to be looked after.
RTM

[Minerbarejet]

The logic of repeating over and over again the same " several tens of thousands of tests" allegedly stated by someone no longer in the

company and hasn't been for some time is extremely interesting.

What does this actually achieve?

It was all very melodramatic when it first came to light and I think probably most people have managed to get over it one way or the other

and it would appear to be a dead issue by now.

But without mentioning any names some people seem to be fixated with this as the framework whereby we judge the whole company five

years down the track with significant accomplishments in a very difficult biotech environment that PEB and others have all had a long hard

road to accomplish anything.

This may sound harsh to some but there seems to have been a lack of understanding of the time required, both here and with PEB, for

acceptance.

Nobody is going to walk in and takeover. Clinical proof and validity is what was lacking and that is now accumulating.

The other factor is that PEB is trying to change clinical procedure and has been successful in doing so in NZ.

This will not go unnoticed by many other organizations such as Kaiser, Johns Hopkins, and those of us still with a positive attitude look forward

to acceptance.

One might suggest that the longer that PEB goes on without a CR may be a very good indication that some funds are accruing, possibly from

some of the laggard payers now left without excuses now the prices and codes are in effect.

[Ggcc]

The logic of repeating over and over again the same " several tens of thousands of tests" allegedly stated by someone no longer in the

company and hasn't been for some time is extremely interesting.

What does this actually achieve?

It was all very melodramatic when it first came to light and I think probably most people have managed to get over it one way or the other

and it would appear to be a dead issue by now.

But without mentioning any names some people seem to be fixated with this as the framework whereby we judge the whole company five

years down the track with significant accomplishments in a very difficult biotech environment that PEB and others have all had a long hard

road to accomplish anything.

This may sound harsh to some but there seems to have been a lack of understanding of the time required, both here and with PEB, for

acceptance.

Nobody is going to walk in and takeover. Clinical proof and validity is what was lacking and that is now accumulating.

The other factor is that PEB is trying to change clinical procedure and has been successful in doing so in NZ.

This will not go unnoticed by many other organizations such as Kaiser, Johns Hopkins, and those of us still with a positive attitude look forward

to acceptance.

One might suggest that the longer that PEB goes on without a CR may be a very good indication that some funds are accruing, possibly from

some of the laggard payers now left without excuses now the prices and codes are in effect.

What the future brings for PEB we won’t find out until later and even Balance has said PEB could be an up and comer only in operation for years . Balance has mentioned on PEB’s past which has not been flash. Loads of promises and ideas, yet not fantastic financial results. At the end of the day Balance has been dead accurate with PEBs promises and ideas and the SP is showing the results.

You maybe a believer and onto a winner or not, have you made any contingencies if it becomes a not? That is a question for all shareholders not just you.

Again I thank balance for making my bad money turn into good money.

[Minerbarejet]

What the future brings for PEB we won’t find out until later and even Balance has said PEB could be an up and comer only in operation for years . Balance has mentioned on PEB’s past which has not been flash. Loads of promises and ideas, yet not fantastic financial results. At the end of the day Balance has been dead accurate with PEBs promises and ideas and the SP is showing the results.

You maybe a believer and onto a winner or not, have you made any contingencies if it becomes a not? That is a question for all shareholders not just you.

Again I thank balance for making my bad money turn into good money.

And what contingencies have you made if it suddenly becomes a winner?


Desperately trying to offload some piece of junk at a loss to get in the door during a FOMO episode which is quite on the cards.

It has happened before and was all well supported by the "legend" at the time.

Ill just sit here and wait and see what happens.

My guess is that a herd of newbies and disappointed short term punters will be screaming for PEB shares

At which point I will sell some of my 53 shares at a substantial profit of at least 3%.

Cant have too many eggs in one basket.

But the brokerage will make a hole in the profits.

[Balance]

The logic of repeating over and over again the same " several tens of thousands of tests" allegedly stated by someone no longer in the

company and hasn't been for some time is extremely interesting.

What does this actually achieve?

It was all very melodramatic when it first came to light and I think probably most people have managed to get over it one way or the other

and it would appear to be a dead issue by now.

But without mentioning any names some people seem to be fixated with this as the framework whereby we judge the whole company five

years down the track with significant accomplishments in a very difficult biotech environment that PEB and others have all had a long hard

road to accomplish anything.

It’s ok - I am extremely proud to be mentioned by name for continuously highlighting the pattern of deceitful and misleading behaviour by PEB.

The reason for the several tens of thousands is that it was the start of a string and pattern by this company - and they are still at it.

Prime example - heard any update on Kaiser, the great deliverer to be for PEB? Go back to the annual references to Kaiser and how PEB went completely quiet from about a year ago - no explanations and no updates.

Guess why?

[Ggcc]

It’s ok - I am extremely proud to be mentioned by name for continuously highlighting the pattern of deceitful and misleading behaviour by PEB.

The reason for the several tens of thousands is that it was the start of a string and pattern by this company - and they are still at it.

Anyone heard any update on Kaiser, the great deliverer to be for PEB? Go back to the annual references to Kaiser and how PEB went completely quiet from about a year ago - no explanations and no updates.

Guess why?

Don’t stress capital raise around the corner. We just need three massive updates in a row

[Dentie]

It’s ok - I am extremely proud to be mentioned by name for continuously highlighting the pattern of deceitful and misleading behaviour by PEB.

The reason for the several tens of thousands is that it was the start of a string and pattern by this company - and they are still at it.

Prime example - heard any update on Kaiser, the great deliverer to be for PEB? Go back to the annual references to Kaiser and how PEB went completely quiet from about a year ago - no explanations and no updates.

Guess why?

You've repeatedly (in a tedious manner!) extolled yourself and taken the credit for influencing holders to either sell their PEB stock or, preventing prospective holders from gaining a position. Some of these disciples happily confirm they have been influenced by your negative ravings - which, to my mind, is tantamount to providing online financial advice.

I don't remember reading - as part of any of your "advisory" type of posts - any disclaimer from you, advising these people to "do their own research".

Part of such research is to put PEB into proper investment context. For example, PEB is (was, at that time) a startup/fledgling Biotech company with breakthrough products. That means, by default, they have a totally different RISK profile than, say, Mainfreight, Ryman or the Utilities.

When you apply the risk profile of a (boring) well established blue chip company to an (exciting) startup/fledgling Biotech - it is expected for the Biotech to appear as unattractive. However, when you consider EVERYTHING, the risk vs reward ratio makes the punt into the Biotech too good to pass up - and, naturally, only with dosh you can afford to lose.

Given ALL the above, I am a little surprised as to why some are even considering playing in the PEB space. I think you should take them all by the hand and lead them back to the (apparent?) safety of the blue chips. Actually, maybe the bond market would be safer.....

[Drew95]

US Clinical Review Reinforces Need for Cxbladder in Hematuria Guidelines
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has published a clinical review paper highlighting the need for safer, non-invasive and accurate diagnostic tests and procedures for the detection and management of bladder cancer that can help lower the need for, and impact on patients, from radiation based imaging.


This study, co-authored by Kaiser Permanente, Geisinger Health and other leading healthcare institutions in the USA, compared the harms, advantages and costs associated with five different sets of national or local guidelines for the evaluation of patients presenting to the clinic with hematuria for evaluation for bladder cancer: Dutch, Canadian Urological Association (CUA), Kaiser Permanente (KP), Hematuria Risk Index (HRI), and American Urological Association (AUA).


The review clearly shows that a need exists for safer, non-invasive and accurate diagnostic tests and procedures for the detection and management of bladder cancer that can help lower the need for CT imaging, says Pacific Edge CEO Dave Darling. "The Cxbladder suite of non-invasive diagnostic tests, with their accurate rule-out of patients, who do not have bladder cancer, provides urologists with an opportunity to address the significant shortcomings, highlighted in this study, of the current AUA guidelines for the evaluation of patients with hematuria."


The authors of the review simulated the effect of using each set of guidelines on 100,000 patients to determine detection rates and cost effectiveness, along with the potential to produce co-morbidities including new cancers. The guidelines vary considerably in the intensity and number of options used in the clinical evaluation of hematuria, particularly with regard to the use of computed tomography (CT) scans, which are expensive and carry potential harms associated with radiation exposure. Under the Dutch and CUA guidelines, patients undergo cystoscopy and ultrasonography if they are 50 years or older (Dutch) or 40 years or older (CUA). Under the KP and HRI guidelines, patients receive different combinations of cystoscopy, ultrasonography, CT urography, or no evaluation, with the choice based on risk factors. Under the AUA guidelines, all patients 35 years or older receive cystoscopy and CT urography.


Of the 100,000 patient simulations, a total of 3,514 patients had urinary tract cancers (estimated prevalence, 3.5%; 95% CI, 3.0%–4.0%). The AUA guidelines missed the fewest number of cancers (82 [2.3%]) compared with the other guidelines: the missed detection rate was 116 [3.3%] with the HRI, 130 [3.7%] with KP, 172 [4.9%] with CUA and 251 [7.1%] with Dutch guidelines. However, the simulation model estimated that radiation-induced cancers would develop in 108 (95% CI, 34–201) per 100,000 patients under the KP guidelines, 136 (95% CI, 62–229) under the HRI guidelines, and 575 (95% CI, 184–1,069) under the AUA guidelines. Although the CUA and Dutch guidelines missed detection of a larger number of cancers, there were no radiation-induced secondary cancers with these protocols. The cost of hematuria evaluation using the AUA guidelines ($939/person) was approximately double the cost of using any of the other 4 guidelines (e.g. $443/person for Dutch guidelines), and the incremental cost was $1,034,374 per urinary tract cancer detected compared with that of the HRI guidelines.

Conclusion
For patients with hematuria requiring evaluation for bladder cancer, the more rigorous guidelines cost significantly more, with marginal gains in the number of tumors identified. Guidelines with extensive use of CT imaging were associated with increased costs and harms of secondary cancers, procedural complications, and false positives, with only a marginal increase in cancer detection. The authors state; “the balance of harms, advantages, and costs of hematuria evaluation may be optimized with risk stratification and more selective application of diagnostic testing in general and CT imaging in particular.” The most extensive/aggressive clinical guidelines (AUA) when compared with the most conservative identify the highest number of cancer cases but at a cost of incurring the highest number of new radiation-induced cancer cases. The AUA guidelines generated 5.3-times more radiation induced cancers than the KP guidelines. (575 vs 108).

[Minerbarejet]

It’s ok - I am extremely proud to be mentioned by name for continuously highlighting the pattern of deceitful and misleading behaviour by PEB.

The reason for the several tens of thousands is that it was the start of a string and pattern by this company - and they are still at it.

Prime example - heard any update on Kaiser, the great deliverer to be for PEB? Go back to the annual references to Kaiser and how PEB went completely quiet from about a year ago - no explanations and no updates.

Guess why?

Dont have to guess.
Here is why.

https://mailchi.mp/pelnz/us-clinical...r?e=7af75b8630

They have been busy getting the facts of the whole issue.