Well done deeptech in drawing attention to the value of RAP to...

Well done deeptech in drawing attention to the value of RAP to Pfizer because of the range of respiratory conditions of relevance to it and the importance therefore of ResAppDx..

It’s ResAppDx where the value is. The Covid test is a misleadingdistraction.

The RAP test does not seek to diagnose the Covid virus it diagnoses theconsequent DISEASE and NOT the virus. Because of the test methods that were used we are conned into thinking it ismeant to detect the virus and is not accurate enough at doing so. Of course itis not. Its not meant to do the same thing as the PCR test it is being comparedagainst.

At this stage there have been only a couple of thousand tests conducted buteven so there is no reason to believe that the RAP Covid test has not been 100%accurate in those tests at what it does.

If someone is still sick but the virus has reduced to an undetectablelevel RAP will give a TRUE POSITIVE on the disease whilst the PCR test, thatonly detects the virus, will say it isn’t Covid, that the condition has someother cause.

If a person has been infected with the virus but the disease has notdeveloped yet the PCR test will correctly be positive and the RAP testCORRECTLY negative.

That is the reason why there would be a difference between a PCR resultand a RAP result with Covid. They are detecting TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

It is COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL to infer that the RAP Covid test and a PCRtest will give the same result.

I haven’t seen any reference to any other test claiming it is able todiagnose the Covid disease. RAP is the only one I know of.

Added into the rest of the ResAppDx suite of diagnosable conditionsResAppDx is a massive asset to Pfizer. Indeed, a massive asset to any BigPharma involved with respiratory issues.

And how has the ResAppDx been ‘valued’ in the ‘expert’ analysis?

Read pages 19 to 22 of the ‘acuity’ report people and you will see.That’s all you need to read.

It is based entirely on an assumption that only 0.1 to 0.2 % of patientsgoing to GPs (yes, that’s right, GPs only, forget about any other use) in aselect number of countries (forget about Africa, South America and variousother countries that don’t exist) will be diagnosed using anything other thancurrent methods. That is ResAppDx will only be used about 0.15% of the time (and with GPs).

That is the ENTIRE ASSUMPTION on which the ‘preferred’ price of 20.8cents is based.

No justification is given for this subjective figure.

If this assumption were even just 1% of GP’s patients instead of 0.15%of this restricted clinical use (ie, any use without a clinician present is notincluded in the calculations at all - forget about the advantages of telehealth) this price would have been 59.5 cents. Ifit were just 5% of GPs’ patients in this restricted number of countries, anduse conditions, the ‘preferred’ price would have been $2.52 (using the expert’sown method to calculate this).

And how much will it cost us for the rest of the development ofResAppDx? The answer is $1 million (see page 20) plus any marketing costsrequired. That’s how much more we need to develop the Dx and leave the Covidtest, etc, alone for while.

And how much will RAP get for every ResAppDx test, a question that welong-term holders have been wondering about for some time? It seems it is A$5.95 (85% of $7.00, again page 20).

Don’t believe me people. Read the Scheme Booklet yourself. Do your ownsums and make your own assumptions.

A very BIG NO from me.

poorinvestor