PEB - Pacific Edge Ltd

[Minerbarejet]

On the Balance of probabilities I think Swann Lake would be a good name.

due to the drought I was thinking that Swanndry might be better but I will have to get the Dogs cygnet chewer on that.

Right, so back to the frank and open discussion and that great post with a lot of information regarding NMP22 and Matritech from Hancocks.

[skid]

Two Really Strategic & Important Market Releases are needed, forget the rest, unless it’s a ‘curve ball’ ………

Some of youse fellas seem to be having a damn good time with this thread and it is being done as a noble gesture to protect new and inexperienced investors in what is undoubtedly a spec stock - and I say “good on you” however, I think some posts are getting a bit too immoderate and effusive.

A Patent in India is of no consequence if there are no immediate plans to establish a market. But, it may be really important if there are developments that we are not aware of; I don’t think that is the case however, because Pacific Edge has advised they are focusing on the America market.


NEED TO SEE. Centres for Medicare & Medicaid Services sign up to CxBladder.

The Centres for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) granted coverage for the Matritech BladderChek NMP22 in 2002; the test itself was quite cheap ($30-20) and was reimbursed by CMS and other insurers for nearly full cost (then at $24). If CMS accepts CxBladder and we see this release, then that is full corroboration and acceptance of the tests utility and associated cost savings, this would be a major milestone and well worth shouting about.


NEED TO SEE. Veterans Administration Hospitals sign up to CxBladder.

Dr. Giora Katz, was a Staff Urologist at the Department of Surgery-Urology Service, Lake City Veterans Administration Hospital and he ran a clinical trial of BladderChek NMP22 at twenty-three academic, private practice and veterans’ facilities in 10 states prospectively from September 2001 to May 2002. The results were good enough for the test to be slowly adopted by the Veterans Administration Hospitals; so again, if we see this release, that would also be full corroboration and acceptance of the tests utility and associated cost savings. (Woo Hoo).

AND THE REASON: NMP22 is only an adjunct to most tests only.

Attachment 7172

Im just wondering about a few things in terms of comparing PEBs test with that of NMP22,--The first is that CX is quite alot more expensive than NMP22 and the second is that although it (NMP22)was adopted,it still didnt really make it in the end,at least compared to the goal set by PEB.
I know PEB has a better product,but I cant help wondering how much influence that cheap price for NMP22 had on their decision to adopt it.

I guess it depends a bit on who wins out ,the urologists,or the bean counters. (I suppose one possibility if the latter win is a partial reimbursement,but that could have an effect on the number of tests actually used)

I suppose another scenario is if they were able to reduce the price ,and sell more ,then they would still be on track--provided your scenario played out.

[Snow Leopard]

The current website for NMP22 BladderChek makes references to this study report and also this other study report.

Worth reading if you interested.

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

[Minerbarejet]

Quite agree, well worth reading.

Is there nothing a little more recent than 2005 and 2006?

No further clinical studies by them comparing cxbladder to nmp22?

Updates on improvements, if any?

May have missed something due to an aversion to downloads on this tablet.

[NT001]

Both those study reports in the American journal are about a decade old, as Minerbarejet indicates. And almost immediately after publication they were in fact severely questioned by some experts

http://blcwebcafe.org/content/view/97/107/lang,english/

and a more recent book surveying bladder cancer diagnostic methods was in fact not overly impressed with the performance of NMP22, at page 12.

<https://books.google.co.nz/books?isbn=1597454176>

[Dentie]

Im just wondering about a few things in terms of comparing PEBs test with that of NMP22,--The first is that CX is quite alot more expensive than NMP22
I know PEB has a better product,but I cant help wondering how much influence that cheap price for NMP22 had on their decision to adopt it.

I guess it depends a bit on who wins out ,the urologists,or the bean counters.

Hancocks has covered this well (as usual). My thoughts were ...

1. Would I rather have titanium nuts locking the engines in place at 38,000 feet ... or the plastic ones? (Think ticket prices here).
2. How many patients died unnecessarily?
3. How many patients went through cystoscopy unnecessarily?
4. In the end, what was the overall cost to the health system versus how much less it could have been?

We know, you get what you pay for - but the question for the decision makers is...what is it that we really want to achieve? Seems to be a no-brainer.

As Hancocks writes ... accuracy = big cost savings.

[skid]

Hi Skid, accuracy = big cost savings, also ~16,000 Americans will die because of Bladder Cancer this year. More than one million Americans will undergo medical investigation for potential bladder cancer at an estimated cost in excess of US$1 billion. And, Bladder Cancer is one of the most expensive cancers to treat.

The very high recurrence rate of this disease, requiring some patients to receive expensive monitoring for the rest of their lives, causes Bladder Cancer to have the highest total medical costs of any cancer from detection to death. In the US, the total medical cost approaches US$220,000 per patient.

NMP22 - look at the comparison (CxBladder to the highlighted NMP22 BladderChek) - big difference, big money at stake. Bean Counters as you call them, ain't stupid, either are the urologists.

Attachment 7176

Dont get me wrong--Im not doubting the product and what the benefits are--Its more an issue of what these giant organizations do and if cost cutting becomes an issue(like in our own health system)-(we know in the long run CX saves money,but with 2 options, CX ,or a far cheaper 2nd option-will they do the right thing?)(or possibly offer CX as well,but at a cost to the patient,ie,partial coverage)-I guess there is no real way of knowing this yet(remember this is a tiny facet of the big medical beast) It would be easy to go unnoticed unless the manage to get the news out there.
I know I keep harping on about a reputable Partner to help with distribution and recognician but going it alone does raise the stakes--If you do make it and it goes viral-you get all the spoils(depending on what kind of a deal they strike with Medicaid,etc.-But it is a much tougher road.

[skid]

Hancocks has covered this well (as usual). My thoughts were ...

1. Would I rather have titanium nuts locking the engines in place at 38,000 feet ... or the plastic ones? (Think ticket prices here).
2. How many patients died unnecessarily?
3. How many patients went through cystoscopy unnecessarily?
4. In the end, what was the overall cost to the health system versus how much less it could have been?

We know, you get what you pay for - but the question for the decision makers is...what is it that we really want to achieve? Seems to be a no-brainer.

As Hancocks writes ... accuracy = big cost savings.

You know that..and I know that--but those big insurance cos can be pretty ruthless. There is no shortage of stories about even our ACC,not to mention American institutions.

[MAC]

Both those study reports in the American journal are about a decade old, as Minerbarejet indicates. And almost immediately after publication they were in fact severely questioned by some experts

http://blcwebcafe.org/content/view/97/107/lang,english/

and a more recent book surveying bladder cancer diagnostic methods was in fact not overly impressed with the performance of NMP22, at page 12.

<https://books.google.co.nz/books?isbn=1597454176>

It just seems to me that increasingly that those habitually bearish on Pacific Edge, and that’s liberally giving them the benefit of the doubt as being bears and not just motivated down rampers, really just can’t make a valid case.

Around and around with the same topics over and over again, if they can’t find an issue then they just try to create one, further losing respect each time.

Entertaining perhaps, but at the end of the day, what a waste of one’s life really, gawd, some folk actually have better things to do with their time.

[Tsuba]

It just seems to me that increasingly that those habitually bearish on Pacific Edge, and that’s liberally giving them the benefit of the doubt as being bears and not just motivated down rampers, really just can’t make a valid case.

Around and around with the same topics over and over again, if they can’t find an issue then they just try to create one, further losing respect each time.

Entertaining perhaps, but at the end of the day, what a waste of one’s life really, gawd, some folk actually have better things to do with their time.

I agree MAC. That is why I am pleased with my simple life in the country with my chooks and Guinea Fowl. What a waste of ones life poring so much energy into rubbishing a stock you have no intention of buying.

Must go. The chooks are calling.