Mojibes. Good thought provoking post. As for the cash situation, I am just echoing what was said via an operations update. In this case, I chose not to do the math because I don't have all the information but my point was the poster left out information that was readily available and inserted his own opinion of the cash flow situation.
It is public information that the cost of the study (TMC's) was being funded by them.
Also, if you read the TMC release, it says:
A more rapid test could transform this practice, allowing us to cut down on the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, which saves money and avoids any potential adverse reactions that patients may have to them.”
You might have to infer some things here, but the method NanoLogix uses utilizes Agar.
Agar is one of the mediums/methods to determine antibiotic sensitivity. So my conclusion is if you can detect the microbial you can test AST. If you can detect the microbial 4 to 6 times faster than traditional methods, you should be able to get the antibiotic sensitivity 4-6 times faster than traditional methods.
Also, have you considered different strains of GBS?
"""To seek new, less expensive possibilities A fast cross reference. Spend federal grant money""""
Your three guess above of the usage of the NanoLogix kits.
The TMC article says nothing about your first guess. Nothing about your second guess, and nothing about your third guess. It does say if a patient in labor comes to the emergency room and you don't know if she has GBS, a faster test can help indiscriminate antibiotic use. We also know traditional methods take 48-72 hours (I am assuming with AST). Therefore, if NanoLogix's test can do it in single digit hours, there is a huge benefit. Remember, the window when a pregnant woman is tested is late term pregnancy and she may be in labor before the results come back, traditionally speaking.