Can we all agree?

[Anonymous]

Can we all agree no matter which lab you work for that the carrier screen and NIPT market is played out! Doctors are sick of all of us!! Larger panels will not fix this , just add to the fatigue! Hey Progenity and we stop being a me too company please!!

 

[Anonymous]

You guys will always be a me too company. You don't have any of your own technology and just repackage a shitty illumina's based NIPT which is why MD's are sick of you guys. I think your company is on its 3rd NIPT test in 3 years. Be innovators not copy cats and retailers and maybe you will last. But, that outlook is doubtful.

 

[anonymous]

Bitter much? Let me guess. You are stuck at Sequenom. Thanks for stalking our board while we take your business. Oh, and maybe you should study up on NIPT. All NIPS are run on a illumina platforms.

 

[anonymous]

Bitter much? Let me guess. You are stuck at Sequenom. Thanks for stalking our board while we take your business. Oh, and maybe you should study up on NIPT. All NIPS are run on a illumina platforms.

Ha!! That's the largest pile of garbage I've ever heard. Seq, Ariosa, and Natera all have different platforms. Then there are about 10 other repackaged companies that purchased Illuminas plaftorm. Who fed you that pile of garbage? Is that what they teach you in training?! Hahahaha

 

[anonymous]

HA! That was pretty funny! All NIPTs certainly aren't made equal. But I'm not surprised that someone from Progenity would think that. Their reps are just clueless.

 

[anonymous]

I dont think the response above said all NIPTs are the same. So who is the dumb ass now? Illumina platforms does not imply equality. Let's look at who is profitable and who is NOT? Let's see, Ariosa...lowest man on thr totem pole. Complete crap. NATERA, if you truly believe your science and technology are superior you have overdosed on some poor quality kool-aid and training. If you and Ariosa or LabCorp are dueling it out, it's for those bottom feeders we won't have anything to do with and frankly, don't need. And sequenom, most similar in technology, simply can't accept the reality. Stop splitting hairs to justify your existence on a sinking ship. Progenity is superior in too many ways to ypur poorly run business model and if you think this company is all copycat, do your research on the explosion of tests available BY Progenity, run AT Progenity in multiple divisions not just 1 or 2. Your stock sucks for a reason. And so does your leadership. Sad, because it could have been a good thing.

 

[anonymous]

all nipt is the same the only ones who care are the reps because they need something to say while begging for business. The MCOs believe it's all the same and they are willing to pay about 300/ test regardless of the lab

 

[anonymous]

all nipt is the same the only ones who care are the reps because they need something to say while begging for business. The MCOs believe it's all the same and they are willing to pay about 300/ test regardless of the lab

I truly hope you are not educating docs as you obviously have zero clue about what you are talking about.

 

[anonymous]

I dont think the response above said all NIPTs are the same. So who is the dumb ass now? Illumina platforms does not imply equality. Let's look at who is profitable and who is NOT? Let's see, Ariosa...lowest man on thr totem pole. Complete crap. NATERA, if you truly believe your science and technology are superior you have overdosed on some poor quality kool-aid and training. If you and Ariosa or LabCorp are dueling it out, it's for those bottom feeders we won't have anything to do with and frankly, don't need. And sequenom, most similar in technology, simply can't accept the reality. Stop splitting hairs to justify your existence on a sinking ship. Progenity is superior in too many ways to ypur poorly run business model and if you think this company is all copycat, do your research on the explosion of tests available BY Progenity, run AT Progenity in multiple divisions not just 1 or 2. Your stock sucks for a reason. And so does your leadership. Sad, because it could have been a good thing.

Hahaha! You're a true idiot. Funny you mention Labcorp when you tools run the exact same screen. You have no market share and your company is run by shady ex Seq leadership..you guys split hairs with labcorp and Seq because you run same test in the same crappy manner. Only competition is Harmony and Panorama. The docs LITERALLY laugh at all others (Seq, prog, good start, Counsyl, labcorp, quest, etc) you all use a franchised platform and illumina is laughing all the way to the bank!

 

[anonymous]

Hahaha! You're a true idiot. Funny you mention Labcorp when you tools run the exact same screen. You have no market share and your company is run by shady ex Seq leadership..you guys split hairs with labcorp and Seq because you run same test in the same crappy manner. Only competition is Harmony and Panorama. The docs LITERALLY laugh at all others (Seq, prog, good start, Counsyl, labcorp, quest, etc) you all use a franchised platform and illumina is laughing all the way to the bank!

Actually you may be missing a chromosome yourself. MPS is by far the best technology, period. Especially Illumina. Lowest failure rate on market. Read the new Acog and and Smfm guidelines. There is no comparison. Nice try though!

 

[anonymous]

Actually you may be missing a chromosome yourself. MPS is by far the best technology, period. Especially Illumina. Lowest failure rate on market. Read the new Acog and and Smfm guidelines. There is no comparison. Nice try though!

HA! The new ACOG guidelines say to use a screen, specifically one that reports Fetal Fraction. You idiots don't report ff and the PPV of the illumina platform (et Bianchi) is 45%! You guys are trash compared to the others and every doctor knows it. Who are you kidding with the new guidelines? Check out how well you did with the Bostom MFM trial and the letter to the editor when Progenity, Labcorp and Seq all reported that two non pregnant women showed a normal female fetus. Why? Because you dont report FF as your confidence interval. Seq. actually reported a FF of a non pregnant woman to be 4.6% LOL...pathetic. Yeah, the MPS method is by far the best. Because looking at all the chromosomes, unnecessarily and having to do so with maternal contribution makes a ton of sense. How do you guys do with Triploidy and Vanished Twins? I bet those dont throw off your numbers at all do they? One wouldn't know because they ONLY validation your crappy company relies on is the Bianchi paper and you excluded triploidy, VT's, multiple gestation and mosaics from your studies. YIKES! Also, lets talk about ACOG and SMFM...they recommend not performing NIPT on multiple gestation, yet you guy folks tout you can do it and have doctors ordering for it. So, if you are so up ACOG's ass, you would know that you disobey them everyday by rec. twins. I have not even had my coffee yet. You are completely brainwashed...and I feel bad for you because you do not understand bio informatics, the genome, and good science. You sell a repackaged pile of crap. Sorry not sorry.

 

[anonymous]

HA! The new ACOG guidelines say to use a screen, specifically one that reports Fetal Fraction. You idiots don't report ff and the PPV of the illumina platform (et Bianchi) is 45%! You guys are trash compared to the others and every doctor knows it. Who are you kidding with the new guidelines? Check out how well you did with the Bostom MFM trial and the letter to the editor when Progenity, Labcorp and Seq all reported that two non pregnant women showed a normal female fetus. Why? Because you dont report FF as your confidence interval. Seq. actually reported a FF of a non pregnant woman to be 4.6% LOL...pathetic. Yeah, the MPS method is by far the best. Because looking at all the chromosomes, unnecessarily and having to do so with maternal contribution makes a ton of sense. How do you guys do with Triploidy and Vanished Twins? I bet those dont throw off your numbers at all do they? One wouldn't know because they ONLY validation your crappy company relies on is the Bianchi paper and you excluded triploidy, VT's, multiple gestation and mosaics from your studies. YIKES! Also, lets talk about ACOG and SMFM...they recommend not performing NIPT on multiple gestation, yet you guy folks tout you can do it and have doctors ordering for it. So, if you are so up ACOG's ass, you would know that you disobey them everyday by rec. twins. I have not even had my coffee yet. You are completely brainwashed...and I feel bad for you because you do not understand bio informatics, the genome, and good science. You sell a repackaged pile of crap. Sorry not sorry.

Shit! Lol, somebody just got absolutely ROASTED...

 

[anonymous]

HA! The new ACOG guidelines say to use a screen, specifically one that reports Fetal Fraction. You idiots don't report ff and the PPV of the illumina platform (et Bianchi) is 45%! You guys are trash compared to the others and every doctor knows it. Who are you kidding with the new guidelines? Check out how well you did with the Bostom MFM trial and the letter to the editor when Progenity, Labcorp and Seq all reported that two non pregnant women showed a normal female fetus. Why? Because you dont report FF as your confidence interval. Seq. actually reported a FF of a non pregnant woman to be 4.6% LOL...pathetic. Yeah, the MPS method is by far the best. Because looking at all the chromosomes, unnecessarily and having to do so with maternal contribution makes a ton of sense. How do you guys do with Triploidy and Vanished Twins? I bet those dont throw off your numbers at all do they? One wouldn't know because they ONLY validation your crappy company relies on is the Bianchi paper and you excluded triploidy, VT's, multiple gestation and mosaics from your studies. YIKES! Also, lets talk about ACOG and SMFM...they recommend not performing NIPT on multiple gestation, yet you guy folks tout you can do it and have doctors ordering for it. So, if you are so up ACOG's ass, you would know that you disobey them everyday by rec. twins. I have not even had my coffee yet. You are completely brainwashed...and I feel bad for you because you do not understand bio informatics, the genome, and good science. You sell a repackaged pile of crap. Sorry not sorry.

You said "your" when referring to studies..keep in mind Prog has ZERO clinical validation or peer reviewed data..trash selling trash. Stick with psych guys.

 

[anonymous]

Did this progenity rep just point to ACOG for clarification for the use of the franchised illumina platform and MPS as a superior screen?! Hahahahahaha! Clearly, the rebuttal was from a Natera rep, and I agree with most. As a Ariosa rep, the only competition in my area is Panorama We lose mostly to docs wanting 22Q...but NEVER to an illumina platform like progenity, LCA, Counsyl, and so on...what a joke

 

[anonymous]

HA! The new ACOG guidelines say to use a screen, specifically one that reports Fetal Fraction. You idiots don't report ff and the PPV of the illumina platform (et Bianchi) is 45%! You guys are trash compared to the others and every doctor knows it. Who are you kidding with the new guidelines? Check out how well you did with the Bostom MFM trial and the letter to the editor when Progenity, Labcorp and Seq all reported that two non pregnant women showed a normal female fetus. Why? Because you dont report FF as your confidence interval. Seq. actually reported a FF of a non pregnant woman to be 4.6% LOL...pathetic. Yeah, the MPS method is by far the best. Because looking at all the chromosomes, unnecessarily and having to do so with maternal contribution makes a ton of sense. How do you guys do with Triploidy and Vanished Twins? I bet those dont throw off your numbers at all do they? One wouldn't know because they ONLY validation your crappy company relies on is the Bianchi paper and you excluded triploidy, VT's, multiple gestation and mosaics from your studies. YIKES! Also, lets talk about ACOG and SMFM...they recommend not performing NIPT on multiple gestation, yet you guy folks tout you can do it and have doctors ordering for it. So, if you are so up ACOG's ass, you would know that you disobey them everyday by rec. twins. I have not even had my coffee yet. You are completely brainwashed...and I feel bad for you because you do not understand bio informatics, the genome, and good science. You sell a repackaged pile of crap. Sorry not sorry.

You're stoned again my clueless fuck up friend. All labs use fetal fraction. Acog doesnt say it needs to be measured or reported. Read it you fucking spaz. Stop trying to twist acogs words. It's very clear and this is why I'm kicking the fucking shut out of you in my terrorist. Mps is validated for low ff, yours is not. Try adding in all the ~ 8% samples that fail with panorama. Try to recalculate your validation with those numbers. Done. Drop da mic.

 

[anonymous]

You're stoned again my clueless fuck up friend. All labs use fetal fraction. Acog doesnt say it needs to be measured or reported. Read it you fucking spaz. Stop trying to twist acogs words. It's very clear and this is why I'm kicking the fucking shut out of you in my terrorist. Mps is validated for low ff, yours is not. Try adding in all the ~ 8% samples that fail with panorama. Try to recalculate your validation with those numbers. Done. Drop da mic.

Hahahahaha!!! Different poster but you couldn't be any more wrong!! LOLOL

 

[anonymous]

You're stoned again my clueless fuck up friend. All labs use fetal fraction. Acog doesnt say it needs to be measured or reported. Read it you fucking spaz. Stop trying to twist acogs words. It's very clear and this is why I'm kicking the fucking shut out of you in my terrorist. Mps is validated for low ff, yours is not. Try adding in all the ~ 8% samples that fail with panorama. Try to recalculate your validation with those numbers. Done. Drop da mic.

Boston MFM. Done. Drops da mic.

If you used and reported FF, you wouldn't have missed two non pregnant patients you tool. Re-read ACOG so you have a better understanding. Clearly you don't. 8% failure rate? You mean re-draws? Sorry we don't report suspected aneuploidy, may or may not, we give you a high or low risk, so our quality metrics are a little higher and our redraw rate is 4% even still. How low of FF can you tools report a correct risk assessment? I'll wait...

 

[anonymous]

You're stoned again my clueless fuck up friend. All labs use fetal fraction. Acog doesnt say it needs to be measured or reported. Read it you fucking spaz. Stop trying to twist acogs words. It's very clear and this is why I'm kicking the fucking shut out of you in my terrorist. Mps is validated for low ff, yours is not. Try adding in all the ~ 8% samples that fail with panorama. Try to recalculate your validation with those numbers. Done. Drop da mic.

No use in arguing. This is the kind of talent this company hires. Same kind that got their management banned from Sequenom...progenity is the laughing stock of the NIPT market and everyone knows it. The numbers show it, and it's not even close.

 

[anonymous]

You're stoned again my clueless fuck up friend. All labs use fetal fraction. Acog doesnt say it needs to be measured or reported. Read it you fucking spaz. Stop trying to twist acogs words. It's very clear and this is why I'm kicking the fucking shut out of you in my terrorist. Mps is validated for low ff, yours is not. Try adding in all the ~ 8% samples that fail with panorama. Try to recalculate your validation with those numbers. Done. Drop da mic.

I can't handle this inept r*****. No wonder you work for progenity.

 

[anonymous]

No use in arguing. This is the kind of talent this company hires. Same kind that got their management banned from Sequenom...progenity is the laughing stock of the NIPT market and everyone knows it. The numbers show it, and it's not even close.

So your technology is sooo good you cannot get in network with any real plans and your stock has dropped 45%. Truly hilarious. Absolute delusion you kool aid drinking stooge.