Therma Bright Inc V.THRM

RE:RE:RE:Approval for Testing vs Authorization for Use

[Moemoney42]

Smokey1958 wrote:

Completely agree Boubouna! Yes, sorry to leave the impression of an unscientific test. My background sometimes leads me to believe that would be automatically understood ....so many thanks for tying up that loose end,

The point I was trying to make was that if they test 100 people and all were negative for covid it wouldn't prove any evidence that there test is a good one. They have to almost be assured that there will be a significant number of positive tests to compare to that gold standard PCR Test. The only way to do that is to know that there are individuals during the testing process that are symptomatic for something, whether covid or not.

As for transparency ....who knows what happened in February. Was it a misstep, absolutely. If they can be accused of anything in their December NR it was being too optimistic regarding the time taken in improving the specificity and sensitivity, manufacturing the prototype testing device and approval for testing. Thats the whole problem with management... they didn't even have a test site in any of those press releases.. only that they were LOOKING for a test site.. they didn't even have their test protocal cleared with the proper agencies either.. with no mention of that either.. so its not just "being to optomistic" thats the issue.. ITS LACK OF TRANSPARENCY..!!! Should they have been forthcoming in February, probably .....but it's pretty uncommon for companies to release bad news. As you said ....and Imwould just add, in both instances you run the risk of creating doubt.

Thanks for the feedback!!!

Have a great weekend ....like you as well I sincerely believe there are very bright days ahead.

 

boubouna wrote: Hey Smokey, I always appreciate your posts...they deal with business and are always courteous and professional...but, I have to point out that Therma doesn't 'just' need positive results...they are tesing for both...symptomatic and asymptomatic....in true primitive terms....they can literally stand in the same line as others being tested and 'mirror' their test results...for example...as 100 people get tested by nasal swab, do the same 100 tests with AcuVid and compare the data to eliminate false positives whilst still letting AcuVid perform at the same time...this would take literally a day to do and then have results from the nasal swabs within 24hrs to a week...but Therma would have the results in 15-20mins and be able to compare against the nasal swabs....all in all...24hrs to 1 week for 'comparitive' results...and they should speak for themselves...it would also be a way to sublty intorduce 'what's coming' (saliva tests) but more importantly...prove its effectiveness...

As much as I agree with just about eveything you have posted to date, it is clear Therma management dropped the ball on transparency for end of Dec and end of Feb testing....even in a court of law, you only have to create a seed of doubt to convict, or exonerate....

I will even take bad market conditions and month end tax selling, etc, etc, as excuses...but not being transparent on very key testing requirements and deadlines for a product that will 'save the world' so to speak...simply creates doubt....

I am still long and still hope but at this point, with proven testing of their procduct already in place via lab results....this is 'becomes' not rocket science...this preliminary 'leg-work'  had, and should have been done already....and if there was a 'reason' that it couldn't be done...they needed to announce that...that's the dagger.....'doubt'...a deadly killer...

Please keep posting...