hpv competitors, page-6

Redfaces thanks for such a detailed response. However it seems to me that we are both still talking at cross purposes.

First I should probably explain that without having actually seen CerviScreen or TruScreen I think I am fairly au fait with the design and modis operandi of both. I also realise that the inherent differences in design and operation of both products make it essential to target them at two entirely different world markets (CerviScreen to Australia, the US and Europe etc. TruScreen to China, India, remote regions etc).

TruScreen is obviously important to these second world markets as it is "real time" technology that does not require the expensive pathology services (of Papanicolaou smear screening) that are either unavailable or may (due to sub standard practices) be of questionable accuracy in these markets.

However (and this is where we differ) I just can't see that as you say "persuading the administrators/doctors that widespread testing for cervical abnormalities is itself a good thing" ... should be a hugely difficult task. IMO it's almost a no-brainer ... to reduce female mortality.

After all the World Health Organisation reported in 2005 that "cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women". And 80% of cases occur in the developing world. Therefore it would surely follow that getting WHO support should be a high priority for PLT, and would greatly assist their penetration into these markets.

As far as CerviScreen is concerned ... given the choice of DIY (self sampling) as opposed to the often painful and embarrasing doctor/speculum humiliation (that currently precedes Pap smear screening) I know which I will be opting for ! No challenge here in getting women to make the switch IMO. I concede that problems could arise with the medico/pathology fraternity if they were to perceive their hip pocket nerves being threatened but as they will still be involved in the process ... surely that will not be an issue.