-
25-07-2020, 12:28 PM
#17961
Originally Posted by Balance
Wise saying I try to follow - ‘we cannot change what’s out of our control but we can control our approach!’
And is it too much to hope that you will also be able to control your visceral distaste for any party, process, or proceeding that is even a smidgen to the left of centre right? Or even find a kinder or wittier way to poke at the things about the world you so obviously detest?
-
25-07-2020, 12:53 PM
#17962
Member
Originally Posted by davflaws
And is it too much to hope that you will also be able to control your visceral distaste for any party, process, or proceeding that is even a smidgen to the left of centre right? Or even find a kinder or wittier way to poke at the things about the world you so obviously detest?
So you want someone else to control your destiny?
-
25-07-2020, 02:14 PM
#17963
Originally Posted by Minerbarejet
In a patient with a history of low-risk cancer and a normal cystoscopy, a clinician should not routinely use a urinary biomarker or cytology during surveillance. (Expert Opinion)
This does not say they cant use it and indicates the opportunity to use it in cases where the cystoscopy is not normal as well as any other time.
As far as the AUA is concerned I think there may be some "patch protection" going on.
Every four years is no way to keep up with developments especially under the present medical disaster of Covid 19 and the need for much less contact. Some quick thinking and utilization of what is available should be taking place.
The " this is the way we have always done it" dissonance encrusted attitude suggests the wagons are being encircled as a defence to any suggestion that their predetermined gold standards might just possibly be under threat.
Your idea of patch protection rings true for me also. Medical specialties are notoriously conservative, mostly for good reasons, but slow to adapt, particularly in a litigious / risk averse environment. It seems however that with the CX Bladder suite of tests that risk aversion is swinging in their favour. Kaiser & CMS have recognised this. It will be interesting to see the % take-up of CX Bladder vs cystoscopy in the next couple of years.
All science is either Physics or stamp collecting - Ernest Rutherford
-
25-07-2020, 04:38 PM
#17964
Member
We all do our best to asses the companies we invest in.Research is key in any type of investment but it gives me some peace of mind when the professionals take an interest in the company knowing they have given it due diligence. Happy to see ANZ along for the ride and 22m is a big slice of confidence.
-
25-07-2020, 06:08 PM
#17965
Originally Posted by nevchev
We all do our best to asses the companies we invest in.Research is key in any type of investment but it gives me some peace of mind when the professionals take an interest in the company knowing they have given it due diligence. Happy to see ANZ along for the ride and 22m is a big slice of confidence.
Agree there Nevchev .. I bounced into this one a week or so back, only regret: not buying more
-
25-07-2020, 06:48 PM
#17966
Originally Posted by psychic
Hi Psychic
This is from an interested bystander in reply to your Monitor results query.
GenomeWeb: Pacific Edge Bladder Cancer Recurrence Test Outperforms Others in Head-to-Head Comparison.
CxBladder Monitor Trial finished in 2016, follow the link and you will see there were 803 enrolled participants.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/...&draw=1&rank=1
If you follow this link:
https://www.cxbladder.com/nz/news/20...ad-comparison/
you will find the associated study, the researchers collected a total of 1,036 urine samples from 803 patients undergoing surveillance for urothelial carcinoma. Of these, 1,016 samples were directly assessed using Cxbladder Monitor, cytology, NMP22 Bladderchek, and NMP22 ELISA.
-
26-07-2020, 07:00 AM
#17967
Originally Posted by Harrie
So you want someone else to control your destiny?
Politically, I am centre left. But "controlling" my "destiny" sounds a bit bigger than my views on the performance of the current government.
I didn't frame my post to Balance very well. I sound slightly ****ty whereas I was intending a gentle "poke".
I would like it if we could all try to be a little kinder to each other and I believed that the world would be a better place if we could individually behave better long before the PM stole my idea. - That's socialism for ya!
Last edited by davflaws; 26-07-2020 at 07:02 AM.
Reason: clarity
-
26-07-2020, 07:38 AM
#17968
Back to PEB... (please let's keep Politics out of this thread folks)
Some weekend musings re the ANZ buy in:
1.) It puts a 'floor' on the SP at around the 50c buy-in price. Those of us who have an average holding SP close or below to this price should do very well long term. Exciting times ahead.
2.) Other institutions will now want to get on board PEB and will have to pay a premium over ANZ's holding (Particularly if PEB gets NZX50 inclusion)
3.) Financially I don't expect too much from PEB in FY21 primarily due to the Covid effect and much depends on how successful they are in reclaiming the costs of previous uncharged CMS tests which could add roughly $8 - $10 mill to the revenue.
4.) By FY22 PEB should be making real progress in terms of both acceptance of its technology and its revenue/profits.
5.) A doubling or tripling of the SP in the next 2 years is not an unreasonable expectation.
GLH
Last edited by Leftfield; 26-07-2020 at 07:47 AM.
-
26-07-2020, 08:05 AM
#17969
Member
What about the potential for a buyout from a bigger fish? I suspect PEB looks a lot tastier with the recent milestones.
-
26-07-2020, 08:11 AM
#17970
Originally Posted by Longhaul
What about the potential for a buyout from a bigger fish? I suspect PEB looks a lot tastier with the recent milestones.
Agree.....would hate to see it happen...but if it does happen I would expect a huge premium on recent prices and pocket the gains.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks