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: Sigmund who wrote (967)	1/7/1998 12:09:00 PM
From: Dana Winrow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1894

Sigmund, I appreciate your comments in posts 944 and 967 and have taken your advice about "sniping" to heart. Let me assure you that it was not my intent to come off in the manner which you interpreted. My comments that follow are simply an attempt to give you and others on this thread some further insight into the current state of affairs regarding automation in the cytopathology laboratory; product names are mentioned only because this topic of discussion was initiated by a request for information about the comparison of NeoPath's and AccuMed's products. We can assure you that we are not complacent about NeoPath or any other "competition" in the cytopathology marketplace. We do not consider NeoPath or its Pathfinder product as competition other than for the same dollars available in a laboratory. We will not comment on whether NeoPath's purchase of Pathfinder makes sense or not; only time will tell. However, my previous comments about the Pathfinder stand. The Pathfinder in its present form is not the same, nor used in the same environment, as the AcCell. Laboratories do not consider the two products to be the same. The issues surrounding automation in cytopathology are complex and verge on controversial; it follows that a discussion of the companies that are making an impact on the cytopathology marketplace with their automated systems would be highly charged. We suggest that you read editorials and papers regarding such systems that have not been put out by the companies as a basis for making further judgements. I realize that such reading material might be hard to come by, and as such, I would be happy to send you (via fax or US mail) a copy of one such editorial published in the January 1998 edition of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology entitled "Automated Primary Screening for Gynecologic Cytology: The Time Has Not Yet Come". Please contact me directly via e-mail if you would like a copy. Dana Winrow Director, Investor Relations AccuMed International, Inc.