my (second) last ever post on the plt thread, page-2

Red,

It appears to be a well balanced post, and reads very well.

However, one of the most crucial arguments doesn't quite stack up.

The supposed threat to TruScreen in developing markets is based on the Qiagen test, which you mentioned being available at $5.

I quote the following from the Bloomberg article, that was referenced in a post both here by Mr Bullman and I forwarded a copy on the GBI thread:

>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Qiagen NV, the Dutch maker of viral assays for the cancer- causing HPV virus, will donate one million HPV tests worth $30 million to screen women in developing countries over the next five years, the company said in a statement today. The company contributed discounted tests for the research.

The screening test, which costs an average of $30, will be produced in a simplified version for rural use for about $5, said Qiagen Chief Executive Officer Peer Schatz in a telephone interview."
<<<<<<<<<<

Let's review that ...
- $30 per test
- Qiagen NV are donating $30 million over the next 5 years
- they expect to produce the test in a simplified version for about $5 ... this is presumably part of the $30 million donation (i.e. to make it available for this cost), and they 'EXPECT' to produce it at that price ... some time or other in the future

I wouldn't be calling it a $5 test quite yet.

As for SUS's, I'm not 100% sure about it but I seem to remember it being around $7 per SUS, and at $5K per TruScreen unit (doing 30,000 per year or more) it is still a very cheap proposition for mass-screening, here and now ... not maybe into the future.

Also, the Qiagen simplified test is designed for remote rural use, not hospitals. Hospitals can afford to have something set up, simpler and with immediate results appearing on a computer screen / printout rather than mucking about with tens of thousands of kits.

I will admit to not having researched this in any great depth, as I am time-poor like everyone else, but on the surface of it the argument doesn't quite stack up.

As for CerviScreen / STI testing, whilst you at least go beyond calling it a bit of plastic (Copan would be incensed ... there's a lot of technology in that simple device), PLT are aiming to be the Band-aid / Liquid Paper / Hoover of the market, being one of the first to get the whole package out there and build a brand name. They are focused on doing it now and gaining that incumbent advantage, and the good news is they are already selling it and have it all ready to go once there's sufficient money to really push it hard (re. marketing, worldwide).

I won't go into this matter further for the moment, I've got real work to do (i.e. the day job!). I thought I'd just jot down a couple of points to hose down the potential negativity that could otherwise dissipate from the current batch of threads.

As I said Red, I appreciate that your post was relatively balanced and you expressed your views in a most eloquent and methodical manner, however I believe some of the basis of the views expressed are flawed as per the above.

Cheers.

p.s. the thing I really like about PLT is that their potential is in their continuing to commercialise their products (I believe in an accelerating fashion in terms of break-even -> profitability), rather than hoping for the company to be sold (it's the last thing we'd want; if the merger looked like that we'd vote it down).