Pending testing results, page-264

This post from WickedAwesome appears to have gone largely unnoticed. I suggest investors who wish to get their heads around the mechanics of subB2M read it and peruse the publication to which it refers:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X18323957

I suggest the claim of "100% specificity" is a tad misleading.

1. SubB2M is 100% sensitive for Neu5Gc. However, Neu5Gc is present in healthy subjects, making 100% specificity unachievable.
2. The publication states that, due to the overlap of Neu5Gc mean levels in the healthy, stage I and stage II subjects, sensitivity and specificity are approximately 90% and 80% respectively for stage I-II detection.

So unless the testing process has been refined or BD1 is using a definition of specificity unknown to me, the claims of the announcement back in Feb don't stack up.

If anyone with medical qualifications would care to read the publication and comment I'm sure we'd all be grateful.