Guesses at upcoming Quarterly on 31 Jan (or so), page-15

Ill throw my hat in here:

I'm betting the market won't look at the numbers as you are. If it sees a 300% increase in revenue it'll be happy, PROVIDED there's a "respectable" increase in sales (and definitely NOT a decrease). So bearing in mind that the coming quarterly release is for revenue up to December and not after are you betting the revenue for the 2025Q2 will be over 5M?December Quarter last year:

March Quarter last year.
My initial estimates of $1Million stem from the March quarter figures. The $200,000 revenue was the pre sale period for the flu season in the US. This would have reflected the current reporting quarter. The $700,000 quarter was the remaining fulfillment of the US flu season however the company openly stated they missed half the season on the original launch.

This time around, the quarter before the $200,000 would typically come was $300,000 so I am assuming (should never do that) the revenue for the December 2024 quarter should reflect a substantial increase on the $700,000 amount received in March, given this is the first half of the flu season respective to prior comments last year. This would mean that March 2025 quarter report should show an even greater increase than $700,000 given they have now had an entire flu season.

Issue that @danhoff has pointed out is, based on last year, it is easy enough to post a substantial increase YoY for the quarter was so low at $200,000. So Dougs comments about being substantially greater to the prior quarter is only going to be substantial to between $200,000 and $300,000 in revenue whichever quarter he wants to refer to.


Govts and the medical profession may care about overprescribing antibiotics but your average patient couldn't give a damn and you can bet that they'll pressure the Doc to just give me the antibiotic and we'll see. So until there's regulations that say that you have to have the test first B4 the doc prescribes the antibiotic I dont see a big market for the .FebriDx. What do you say?

The issue is really patient understanding and awareness of the effects of antibiotic treatment to the body. I personally would want to know if i have a virus or a bacterial infection. It comes to a cost thing for some. Example, I pay $120-$140 to the doctors and they say "best take antibiotics". So i then go off and pay another $40 on pills which will only improve a virus by 2-3 days. Im out of pocket up to $180 each time im sick.

With a virus normally, I wouldn't need to pay for a doctor visit and take Panadol. This is only a $20 outlay at best. However, Febridx was available for pharmacy as example, then I pay $25 for the test, $20 for the Panadol and i save $140 and i save congesting the GP service for bigger issues. If bacterial infection is required, then same thing, i pay $25 for the test, $40 for the antibiotics or whatever and im out $75 instead of $180.

Febridx in an ER is a good example too - single test, $25, are you dying or not, if not, go take a panadol and move on.

I agree the regulation needs to be in place that requires people to do the test before antibiotics are prescribed to ensure correct diagnosis. If that was in place and we are primary in market, then we are rich as kings. If not, then are are at least in new cars. If we continue like it is, then we are no better than where we are now.