While domestic AR sales slow, Corgenix remains oblivious to the benefits of putting cash and PR behind publicizing the strong Perth study which definitively establishes relationship of aspirin in resistance and resultant higher incidents of heart track.
Here's the most recent Internet reference to that study, in a tele management website of oct 2013:
Aspirin resistance increases heart attack risk
By Tele management, | Health | 0 Comments
(TeleManagement) A study shows that patients who don’t respond to aspirin therapy are more likely to have a heart attack.
Aspirin blocks a molecule called thromboxane which helps platelets stick together, forming clots. That’s how aspirin thins the blood. But aspirin works better for some people than others in preventing clot formation, say researchers at the Royal Perth Hospital, in Australia.
They’ve been involved in a big study of heart disease prevention and this has thrown up some new findings on aspirin. It’s well known that regular aspirin can prevent heart attack and stroke in those at risk. Data on over 5,000 patients showed, however, that aspirin varies in its ability to thin the blood and this effect is carried over into a variability in its ability to protect against heart attack.
The patients who had a high level of a thromboxane-related compound in their urine were twice as likely to have a heart attack compared to those with a low level. Having a high level of this compound indicates that aspirin is not blocking thromboxane as effectively as it is if you have a lower level. These patients are termed ‘aspirin resistant’. The study suggests that they may need additional blood-thinning drugs if they are to get full protection against a heart attack.
They are working very hard for making money from new tests and contracts, but not enough for sales core or AW test........ which has show at inancing situation. APS and AW are the test at leading and not competitor whole world market.......... Give them more time and trust . ........
They know of it. I wrote them about it last year. Made a comment on it during recent and past conference calls.
They just seem complacent that Penn study had no detrimental effect, that the truth is understood by existing clients and that Penn has not prejudiced future clients. Hence no need of publicizing Australian and other successive studies.
I vigorously disagree.