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: Frank Buck who wrote (750)	12/21/1997 4:14:00 PM
From: John Zwiener	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1894

To Cisco and Buck, I've also noticed the recent insider selling. 'But from reviewing the 10K, Dec 31, 1996, it would seem that someone, or a group, seems to hold 8 million shares. This may have changed, but it seems that they may hold a majority of the shares. Also, I had read the Ob/Gyn article when it first came out and at that time, it was not as good as I would have wanted it, but it was not the only study that was submitted to the FDA. Subsequently, the additional studies seem to showing that the thinprep is better than the aggregate studies indicated. I think it would be hard for cytyc to buy the whole world off. I have been starting to look at acumed and so far, I'm not sure how it fits in when compared to it's competators. I know I do not like Leica, so I have to balance out my initial impression of that company. The decrease in reportining time is not anything exclusive to acmi. The important thing is whether the instrument itself can fit in with the thinprep. I think cytyc is also coming out with a similar instrument to acmi. Also the initial study by npth with cytyc looked promising, but I will say that all of the automated slide reader companies seem to be vague with releasing the complete data that I w2ould like to see to evaluated what is going on. Can anyone, in a few paragraphs give concrete numbers that show why acmi is moving forward. Not the sayso of company officials. I am interested. With the info I have read so far here, I would not but this stock.

To: Frank Buck who wrote (750)	12/22/1997 4:54:00 AM
From: Cisco	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1894

Frank, There is an interesting article entiled Evaluating the Abnormal Pap in Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 1997 edition of Penn Today. Penn Today is an offical publication of the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center. They talk about what to look for in choosing a quality laboratory. They state that the best laboratories require all pertinent background information about the patient, and communicate directly with the physican about the quality of the Pap smear. Sounds just like AccuMed's emphasis on data management to me! They also state that every abnormal Pap smear should be reviewed by two or three pairs of eyes. Doesn't sound like they are ready to put the cytopathologists and cytotechnologists out to pasture yet. But what caught my attention most was the statement contributed to Prabodh K. Gupta, MD, director of Penn's cytopathology and cytometry laboratory, and current president of the American Society of Cytopathology (ASC): ®The FDA recently approved two computer-based automated devices that recheck Pap smear slides that were initially classified as normal. Although these devices may ultimately have a role in improving accuracy, in a statement signed by Gupta, the ACS urged its members to "proceed with caution in the adoption of these technologies."¯ ®The FDA also approved a new approach to specimen collection and processing (Thin-prep) in which the sample is mixed in a solution and sent to the lab for further analysis. According to Gupta, the same caution needs to be exercised in using this approach.¯ I don't know about you Frank, but that doesn't sound too keen on primary sceeners or Thin-prep to me. med.upenn.edu Switching gears to another quote I read earlier this year, Pat Connelly, MD, stated: Papnet has a useful device but I believe they are unethically marketing it. Marketing directly to patients when you can't convince cytopathologists is a telling statement. For healthcare workers to aid in this endeavor is a sad testimonial to the state of morality of our profession. The reason I bring this subject up today is because NeoPath has started doing the same thing: biz.yahoo.com Cisco