I totally get what you're saying - you're taking the 'if it...

I totally get what you're saying - you're taking the 'if it ain't broken, don't fix it' position. I'm taking the 'doctors take the path of least resistance' position. Also,

- In terms of reducing costs - it's a lot cheaper and provides equitable images (yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's looking good)

- It dramatically improves workflow as the images can be captured at an earlier stage of the doctor's workflow, and the patient doesn't have to go to the
nuclear department. Everything can be done at the CT stage.

- Radiologists read the images the same as a SPECT image, so there aren't challenges around learning a new way.

- It dramatically increases accessibility as it can be performed on any CT machine so patients will no longer be funneled to their nearest nuclear medicine facility.

- It's all, of course, backed up by ongoing studies, the technology being 15 years old now.

But yes, the proof is in the pudding. If the US Department of Defence go for it over their incumbent method, I guess that will be the proof.

They presented their preliminary data at the American Thoracic Society event in San Fran two weeks ago, and apparently it was very positive. They have been trialing a less detailed 4DMedical product, CT LVAS for a year, and they were so excited by the new product they started trialing it months before it had even been submitted for FDA approval, never mind being FDA approved. When have you heard of that happening?

If I was a CYC investor, I would be taking this risk very seriously.