Research, page-268

@wop

Tech is hot at the moment, but on any fundamental assessment this is a purely tech in research phase investment currently.

They have a working concept based on expert opinion (the lowest form of scientific evidence) and there is no proven literature base which doesn’t help adoption.

Research is critical to justify its utility because it’s not a groundbreaking curative tech. It’s diagnostic. So doctors and professors who teach doctors etc want to see that it provably decreases false positive pathogenic diagnosis and provides better treatment outcomes because of the enhanced “insert x reason this tech is better than y”. While it’s great hearing another doctor, PHD or specialist say something works that is not how the scientific process works.

If they could combine this tech with a patented device that provided treatment allowing patients to regain lung function then I would agree with you. But it’s just not that groundbreaking or necessary so the uptake will be slow.