another article regarding the merger, page-14

JimCross and Rony18,

Thanks for your responses.

I was aware of the AGM presentation, but it didn't seem to have much information in it that hadn't already been released previously (that I could see). JimCross, when you say that it had 'peer reviews', where was that? I'm still trying to find something that approximates an analyst review/report on FER, to better understand the business. The presentation had a lot of information about the technology and recent clinic trial results and data, but I couldn't find much else that wasn't just recycled. Please point me to the appropriate sections if I missed something. Hopefully there might be some more information coming out in the bidders etc. statements due to be released soon.

Rony18, it's interesting that the response was just that he was going to try to sort the journalist out / get him up-to-speed on the latest info. That sounds like an unofficial 'he doesn't know what he's talking about, pay no attention' kind of thing ... and of course to prevent more articles like that being published by the same journalist.

The bit that I was wondering about in regards to that part of the article, was the following: "Independent researchers have tried and failed to do so" in terms of being "able to produce reasonable results" with the test.

Have there been some hiccups along the way, prior to more recent (positive) trials that anyone here is aware of?

The other thing I've been wondering, is how much do the conventional tests actually cost? I've noticed that the break-even & profitability slides in the presentations value the FermiScan test at around $200-$250 (I think that's AUD ... it's late and I'm not going to check it!), and assumes that the technology is both accepted and adopted by the medical field / public & possibly even the government, by I am wondering how the cost compares to existing tests. If anybody could shed light on this it would be much appreciated.

Cheers.