hey dolcevita. Just to explain my situation more I am not a...

hey dolcevita.

Just to explain my situation more I am not a share-trader. I work a day job as a researcher. I have many other ambitions, projects and commitments that lie outside of HC that has of late given me very limited time to post. Please understand. I am not being elitist, and I make the best effort to respond, often personally by email to anyone who asks me a question on HC, despite some nights getting very little sleep for doing so. After the S&R situation, I'm pretty sure that over 50% of ADO holders have been in contact, and the number of emails of late is overwhelming. I apologise for delayed responses everyone.

I got home at 9 pm tonight, and at your request, I am now studying the intricates of MEMS. I can comfortably say that I do not know enough about MEMS to read into the physics associated with this device... but have asked someone in an overlapping field to get a solid answer for you.

But in answering your question, it does not matter how a device is physically constructed. All assays, including this one require gluing a protein (usually an antibody) to a surface. Sensitivity is but one of a very wide array of factors that need to be considered, and accuracy, reliability and reproducibility are much more important, especially for diagnostics where lives are on the line. These are always influenced by the choice of the "glue" foundation.

For example, the POC1/GHC device is likely the most sensitive of it's class on the market, it still needs our glue for reasons other than sensitivity. The device I work on is much more sensitive if tweaked correctly, and makes the POC1 device sensitivity look unimpressive in comparison. We still use the glue as sensitivity is not what is most important. Other factors, like gluing proteins that cannot be glued by other means, coating efficiencies, cost, coating complexities, issues with miniaturization, time, handling, stability, and overall quality of the assay and many other factors are also important.

I do not see the advancement of super-sensitive devices being an issue for our technology. And alternatively, I see a growing market for us where super-sensitive devices require a foundational chemistry that can allow the device to match and exceed it's own capabilities. In fact, this is the area Anteo are targeting, they are targeting those applications at the forefront of the field that are already above the competition and already pushing sensitivity limits in their respective areas. For a few examples,the POC1 device(magnotech?), the next generation gold nanoparticles, novel gold-coated silicon nanorod biosenors, and novel plastic-based biosensors.

I hope that answers your question

Btw, I hold my shares tighter than M&G holds an antibody to a gold nanoparticle

All IMO, dyor.