Thanks for posting this MrG....After watching this and George's...

Thanks for posting this MrG....After watching this and George's investor presentation, I am not suitably impressed and as such I have sold my holdings a couple of weeks ago. I dont tell people to see or buy, each has their own decision.

My thoughts as to why below: Feel free to agree or disagree each has their own opinion...probably more a reflection of the board than the product itself...I say product not products, because it is just a tweak for each disease state with the algorithm.

In essence these tests are just a DNA swab and an algorithm behind to give a % score relative to each disease state, using data from each subset in addition to DNA genetic profile of a patients....I would suggest that this could be easily duplicated. In saying this, not bad products, but who would be paying US$250, $350 Aus for a test than only shows a 'Polygenic Risk Score' ie no evidence of disease,, when they can go to their dr and get a path test that covers more than the mentioned BRCA1 and BRCA 2 for around the same price with an MBS rebate.

COVID Test- Obviously they have not gained first mover advantage with a launch with Lucira receiving FDA approval for their at home test. Although different to GTG COVID test which is more for High risk patients, the concern here is that as suggested in my previous blog, there should at least be a Heads of Agreement with a Lab or a distributors Sales force who have in grained relationships with ICU through...In my opinion, this test will not amount to a high generation of sales within this space. They would be better off regarding it as a High Risk respiratory risk test.

Breast Test - I think the Board is being misleading when they state the only Biomarkers that are tested fro breast is BRCA1 and BRCA2...maybe this is why they are so far being competitors....other genetic Breast biomarker include PIK3CA, PTEN, AR, AKT1 to name just a few. Good to see that they are looking at NGS but its too little too late.

Sales Marketing Plan - As described by George, I have to disagree, it is NOT compulsory for clinicians to review/complete the GTG modules on the RACGP and similar associations. Yes, they must gain CME points through further ongoing training each year, but this can be any module.
CIT - George mentioned this as the key plan, one would hope that there is a 3rd party sales force out selling these tests to in essence GP's. Oncological physicians have individual hospital pathology labs at their disposal and once a patient reaches this stage they will be doing blood tests, not cheek swabs. CIT will be effective at a lower
As for his subscription service...give me a break...we are talking $350 for one test here....is he talking of asking pts to pay $1000 a year onwards??
One only has to look at Cell Care, which keeps placenta etc to see what a subscription service looks like.....Thses are the clients that GTG should be focussing on...
Marketing - is ok.....Sales Leader??- 4 years in pharma (jnr roles)and a former coffee shop owner....No thanks

Its probably getting quite long at the moment, so I will stop, probably the best for the board, as my thoughts on them are not in a great light but a 10 min drive down the road is a hospital ranked in the top 25 worldwide for cancer.....and they have no relationship whatsoever.

But $140 mil of shareholder value is now down to 2 years of an ongoing concern.....ie probably down to $10-14 mill now in cash, with minimal sales and minimal outlook for sales.........

Apologies for my spelling or grammar...