Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : ACMI - Accumed Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cisco who wrote (548)	11/18/1997 12:28:00 PM
From: Jay D.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1894

CYTC's system I presume is FDA approved and selling in the marketplace? If this is true then the fact that it has been found flawed puts into question all other similar systems on the market including ACMI's, right? This will have negative effect on sales until the buying community is totally sure of the integity of ACMI's system. JMO Jay

To: Cisco who wrote (548)	11/19/1997 1:49:00 AM
From: John Zwiener	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1894

CISCO, the article is populist cytologist seems to have errors. Reading down on the article and concentrating on LGSIL, since that is what the anomous author does, it states that the numbers are 367/497 (pap smear/thinprep), indicating the thinprep picked up more cases. It said there was an 18% advantage thinprep, but if you do the math, it's around 35%. The suspicious info though is that biopsy proven LGSIL was 453/430 and of no significance! But the numbers make no sense. How can you have more biopsy proven cases than screened cases. Also it makes the comment that blood, mucus, and neutrophils diluted the specimen because they compete with the pores. Since these are smaller than the pores or deform so that they can pass through the pores, and the cells of interest do not, it seems to indicate that the person writing this article does not understand what they are talking about. THe reference to Ob/Gyn article describes only one study, not the whole study. I do not know the numbers off hand but I also wonder if they have been, whatever. This person is writing off of rumors, and did not even check out how the study was configured. Also, many others considering using or who have switched to cytyc have conducted their own studies and have their own money at stake. The second reference is also odd and is not scientific, and in my experience, is totally wrong.

To: Cisco who wrote (548)	11/19/1997 12:52:00 PM
From: Frank Buck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1894

Cisco, I don't understand how AutoCyte, Inc. Nasdaq: ACYT can make this claim in their business summary on Yahoos' Finance Profile Sheet: "ACYT develops, manufactures and markets the only integrated automated sample preparation and image analysis system to support cytotechnologists and pathologists in cervical cancer screening." biz.yahoo.com Does the AcCell coupled with the TracCell also provide the "integrated automated sample preparation and image analysis"? Or does the AcCell/TracCell just provide the first-part and not the image analysis? Thanks in advance for your reply. While your there scroll down at their "statistics at a glance". Book value of $0.20 and the stock price is trading in the $9's !! Sales of $2.36 M for the trailing twelve months. The only thing that I see keeping this stock at its current price is the small float of 2.9 M. Otherwise ACMI has it beat in all areas. I will see if I can have the webmistress clarify how the other threads have additional hyper-text buttons at the top of their discussion groups. Frank