Ann: Quarterly Activities/Appendix 4C Cash Flow Report, page-28

I've made the point before with seemingly little support on this forum, not sure why?. IMO quicker testing time is one important advantage, but the MAJOR competitive advantage, especially for the ultimate consumers, ie. patients, is improved likelihood of getting pregnant.

If you could skip one or more rounds of IVF before success, there would be huge cost, and emotional, savings for patients (not so much for clinics tho!).

Stats show that 33% of IVF patients have a baby on 1st cycle, increasing to 54-77% by the 8th cycle!....at a huge cost, to patients.
However, until there is clear, peer reviewed clinical evidence of improved effectiveness, there seems to be little incentive for IVF clinics to adopt Felix.

In the early days MEM referred to claims of increased effectiveness (greater chance of getting pregnant Felix ability to isolate the best sperm), But now this is rarely mentioned, if at all. Yet it remains the MAJOR competitive advantage for patients.

And still no clinical trial results (La Trobe study results by 2023?), to provide empirical evidence of effectiveness claims. Only then will demand from the real marketplace, ie. patients, force clinics to adopt this new technology.

BUT, I'm starting to have real doubts about likelihood of ever seeing such evidence. I would have thought even if there had been anecdotal evidence from KOLs over the last 2 years(!) of improved effectiveness, even if only with damaged/inferior sperm samples, we the shareholders, and more importantly the general public, would have been told?! Aren't MEM legally obliged to disclose that sort of information, even if it is negative.
But MEM's silence continues, despite 2 years of KOL trials.
Or is this another case of MEM management dropping the ball with its communication to shareholders and the marketplace.

If results to date suggest no significant improved effectiveness in rates of pregnancy, I'd prefer to know so i could put my sizeable investment elsewhere.