Minerva vs NovaSure

Quote
anonymous said:
The head to head survey is last ditch effort to stop the bleeding of Novasure business, without a shred of care for what it does to the salesforces’ credibility or reputation. Minerva is just a better device. Wake up folks. Novasure was created with tech from the mid to late 90s. Power is fixed and determined by a blind length x width estimation. Minerva is automatic and modulated. Novasure is hard to open. Minerva seats itself. Novasure is frustrating to troubleshoot failures of CIA test. Minerva confirms seal at the cervix prior to tests. The FDA says Minerva is statistically significantly better (no matter how badly you refuse to accept it). You are going to lose this battle, because the facts always ring true.

Novasure was a great product and had a great run. The brilliant people that created it did an amazing job improving it with 15 years of surgeon feedback and technological advancements, as represented in the Minerva.

The marketing “studies” funded by Hologic are not going to convince anyone that the product is actually better. It will ruin a lot of sale reps reputations and credibility. Think about how you are going to explain why JMIG, Journal or Gynecolgical Surgery, and other reputable publications flat out rejected the study based on numerous ethics violations. This would be a good question for your sales leadership. Be careful how blindly you follow the direction of an unethical, panicked leadership. Your comp plan should tell enough about how they value you.

Be smart, and good luck out there.
Click to expand...

And this moron is spewing about "last ditch efforts". Your desperation is plainly obvious and not appreciated in either hemisphere. And the FDA doesn't "say" a whisper about what is "better", whether you're talking about mathematical significance or actual clinical importance. They just interpret the results that you provide from the studies that they held your hand through.

It will be interesting to see your upcoming "long-term" numbers. The board will soon realize that the oh so inappropriate alk hematin assay that you base conclusions on is bunk.It's a wonderful tool for quantifying actual bleeding, when used correctly.but is essentially worthless for determining amenorrhea rates! It has a lower quantitation limit of 2.5 mL/pad or tampon. That is a lot of blood. If somebody splashed 2.5 ml of blood on your face, or even half that, you would look like a horror movie extra. And your bunk assay would not detect that on a pad or tampon. Not to mention that assay protocol requires a concurrent patient-matched venous blood draw to act as a control, which just didn't happen. I wonder how many women you (mis)categorized as amenorrheic that was spotting or even lightly bleeding, or just changed her stuff out frequently? Your optimistic amenorrhea rates are complete bunk, and amenorrhea rates cited in 1 of entire 2 published Minerva papers is now invalidated. And it's not a guess that your upcoming report also depends on this archaic and oh-so-competent assay's ability to reliably detect true amenorrhea. It has a 2.5 mL lower quantitation limit, remember (want link to KC company website? Here ya go: http://kcasbio.com/service/assays/alkaline-hematin-assay). It's great at saying how much you're bleeding but turns deaf/blind/mute when queried about if there is no bleeding at all (let me make it easy for you: that is called amenorrhea). Please enjoy.

The consistently optimistic amenorrhea rate cited in your upcoming paper (same as 1 of all 2 prior pubs) has already been completely invalidated, pre-publication, and your investors are beginning to realize this, regardless of their bio/med backgrounds.

I, and every other woman with AUB on this planet, WISH your claimed no-bleed values were accurate. THis is an April Fool's Day joke from you to your investors.

Minerva Salespeople: Good luck
Minerva Top Dog(s): You crossed an ethical boundary, waaay to far in desperation, and now you shall vacation in the unemployment line.

signed, The Uterus Gal
 


















anonymous said:
Wow! Are all of you people completely off of your nutt? Seems so and is a bit frightening to a casual observer.
Click to expand...

no, there's just a lot of folks who work in the biz and investors too that are trying to pin down where this will leave them all when everything is said and done. quotas can't keep going up in any business while per-piece revenue continues to decline. simple.
 






anonymous said:
And this moron is spewing about "last ditch efforts". Your desperation is plainly obvious and not appreciated in either hemisphere. And the FDA doesn't "say" a whisper about what is "better", whether you're talking about mathematical significance or actual clinical importance. They just interpret the results that you provide from the studies that they held your hand through.

It will be interesting to see your upcoming "long-term" numbers. The board will soon realize that the oh so inappropriate alk hematin assay that you base conclusions on is bunk.It's a wonderful tool for quantifying actual bleeding, when used correctly.but is essentially worthless for determining amenorrhea rates! It has a lower quantitation limit of 2.5 mL/pad or tampon. That is a lot of blood. If somebody splashed 2.5 ml of blood on your face, or even half that, you would look like a horror movie extra. And your bunk assay would not detect that on a pad or tampon. Not to mention that assay protocol requires a concurrent patient-matched venous blood draw to act as a control, which just didn't happen. I wonder how many women you (mis)categorized as amenorrheic that was spotting or even lightly bleeding, or just changed her stuff out frequently? Your optimistic amenorrhea rates are complete bunk, and amenorrhea rates cited in 1 of entire 2 published Minerva papers is now invalidated. And it's not a guess that your upcoming report also depends on this archaic and oh-so-competent assay's ability to reliably detect true amenorrhea. It has a 2.5 mL lower quantitation limit, remember (want link to KC company website? Here ya go: http://kcasbio.com/service/assays/alkaline-hematin-assay). It's great at saying how much you're bleeding but turns deaf/blind/mute when queried about if there is no bleeding at all (let me make it easy for you: that is called amenorrhea). Please enjoy.

The consistently optimistic amenorrhea rate cited in your upcoming paper (same as 1 of all 2 prior pubs) has already been completely invalidated, pre-publication, and your investors are beginning to realize this, regardless of their bio/med backgrounds.

I, and every other woman with AUB on this planet, WISH your claimed no-bleed values were accurate. THis is an April Fool's Day joke from you to your investors.

Minerva Salespeople: Good luck
Minerva Top Dog(s): You crossed an ethical boundary, waaay to far in desperation, and now you shall vacation in the unemployment line.

signed, The Uterus Gal
Click to expand...


Dear Mr Wizard and Uterus Girl,

Alkaline hematin invalidation? Ok so let’s say you’re right,( even though your not)our classic FDA PBLAC amenhorrhea rate is 66%(single arm). Still double the grandma ablation. I guess women keeping a subjective journal is more accurate than laboratory analysis. Either way you lose.

Minerva statistically significantly outperformed the gold standard rollerball. If you beat the man, you’re the man. Yes we are the gold standard.

Stealing business? We win our business after you lie. Nothing gives me more pleasure than staring at the prehistoric generators and devices sitting in my garage a I drink my morning coffee.

My piece is gigantic and your customers love it.

Go back to sleep.
 






anonymous said:
And this moron is spewing about "last ditch efforts". Your desperation is plainly obvious and not appreciated in either hemisphere. And the FDA doesn't "say" a whisper about what is "better", whether you're talking about mathematical significance or actual clinical importance. They just interpret the results that you provide from the studies that they held your hand through.

It will be interesting to see your upcoming "long-term" numbers. The board will soon realize that the oh so inappropriate alk hematin assay that you base conclusions on is bunk.It's a wonderful tool for quantifying actual bleeding, when used correctly.but is essentially worthless for determining amenorrhea rates! It has a lower quantitation limit of 2.5 mL/pad or tampon. That is a lot of blood. If somebody splashed 2.5 ml of blood on your face, or even half that, you would look like a horror movie extra. And your bunk assay would not detect that on a pad or tampon. Not to mention that assay protocol requires a concurrent patient-matched venous blood draw to act as a control, which just didn't happen. I wonder how many women you (mis)categorized as amenorrheic that was spotting or even lightly bleeding, or just changed her stuff out frequently? Your optimistic amenorrhea rates are complete bunk, and amenorrhea rates cited in 1 of entire 2 published Minerva papers is now invalidated. And it's not a guess that your upcoming report also depends on this archaic and oh-so-competent assay's ability to reliably detect true amenorrhea. It has a 2.5 mL lower quantitation limit, remember (want link to KC company website? Here ya go: http://kcasbio.com/service/assays/alkaline-hematin-assay). It's great at saying how much you're bleeding but turns deaf/blind/mute when queried about if there is no bleeding at all (let me make it easy for you: that is called amenorrhea). Please enjoy.

The consistently optimistic amenorrhea rate cited in your upcoming paper (same as 1 of all 2 prior pubs) has already been completely invalidated, pre-publication, and your investors are beginning to realize this, regardless of their bio/med backgrounds.

I, and every other woman with AUB on this planet, WISH your claimed no-bleed values were accurate. THis is an April Fool's Day joke from you to your investors.

Minerva Salespeople: Good luck
Minerva Top Dog(s): You crossed an ethical boundary, waaay to far in desperation, and now you shall vacation in the unemployment line.

signed, The Uterus Gal
Click to expand...

Minerva has two FDA audited, controlled, and approved studies- meaning the parameters and the means in which the study has been produced pass the most stringent and sound statistical and ethical methods. And they are watching the whole time. The PBLAC pivotal study shows Amenorrhea at 66%. The RCT Alkoline Hemotin shows Amenorrhea at 72%. Minerva does not put out any marketing “studies”. Only validated FDA publications. If Novasure was truly better than the 36% Amenorrhea and 78% success, why not ever submit a study to the FDA for an update to the IFU label? Must be because they would be rejected in the same way this “head to head” was by every reputable journal in America. Good luck trying to brand Minerva as unethical.

No, the Hologic strategy here is to try to create a he said she said environment and confuse the patients and the surgeons. When the dust settles and the FDA is through the investigation into unethical promotional and marketing tactics, and the shareholders finally figure out what this regime is up to and hiding, expect things to get much much worse over at Hologic. Quite possibly even jail time for intentionally misleading the public.
 






anonymous said:
The head to head survey is last ditch effort to stop the bleeding of Novasure business, without a shred of care for what it does to the salesforces’ credibility or reputation. Minerva is just a better device. Wake up folks. Novasure was created with tech from the mid to late 90s. Power is fixed and determined by a blind length x width estimation. Minerva is automatic and modulated. Novasure is hard to open. Minerva seats itself. Novasure is frustrating to troubleshoot failures of CIA test. Minerva confirms seal at the cervix prior to tests. The FDA says Minerva is statistically significantly better (no matter how badly you refuse to accept it). You are going to lose this battle, because the facts always ring true.

Novasure was a great product and had a great run. The brilliant people that created it did an amazing job improving it with 15 years of surgeon feedback and technological advancements, as represented in the Minerva.

The marketing “studies” funded by Hologic are not going to convince anyone that the product is actually better. It will ruin a lot of sale reps reputations and credibility. Think about how you are going to explain why JMIG, Journal or Gynecolgical Surgery, and other reputable publications flat out rejected the study based on numerous ethics violations. This would be a good question for your sales leadership. Be careful how blindly you follow the direction of an unethical, panicked leadership. Your comp plan should tell enough about how they value you.

Be smart, and good luck out there.
Click to expand...

This guy has a really good point. Reputations are on the line here and this study doesn’t pass the smell test. The long winded response previously on AH is irrelevant and diversionary. Why was this study rejected multiple times by all reputable journals? Really putting reps out in the cold on this one...again
 






It is clear from reading this very entertaining thread that there are “fine people on both sides”.

I think the quality of rep in each company is having a neutralizing effect on the other (although watch out for this, as Hologic is experimenting with rep quality right now), and this is really going to come down to technology.

If the Minerva technology was as good as the passion with which the reps on this thread are describing it, we would have seen a more impactful market entry, and after three years you’d have at least 20% share. Especially with Thermachoice exiting the market the year you entered.

This may be an example of strong reps being let down by poor technology.

The next year will be crucial for Minerva. 120M invested so far and 15M sales on your best year... dunno. 60 sales reps on guaranteed comp (or not) costs more than that... I’m not pretending to be the expert on startups but that doesn’t look attractive enough for a company to buy them.
 






:D This doesn’t sound like Mr Wizard now , it sounds like keepin it real rep.

You’re as dumb as your post to think any of us have yearly guarantees. After the truth about the tactics in your recently posted junk article,we will take the market. Either way we’ll get it. Ask yourself a question, if reputable journals denied your study and you had to post I’m in New Zealand, you have a problem that the fellowship of the ring can’t solve.

anonymous said:
It is clear from reading this very entertaining thread that there are “fine people on both sides”.

I think the quality of rep in each company is having a neutralizing effect on the other (although watch out for this, as Hologic is experimenting with rep quality right now), and this is really going to come down to technology.

If the Minerva technology was as good as the passion with which the reps on this thread are describing it, we would have seen a more impactful market entry, and after three years you’d have at least 20% share. Especially with Thermachoice exiting the market the year you entered.

This may be an example of strong reps being let down by poor technology.

The next year will be crucial for Minerva. 120M invested so far and 15M sales on your best year... dunno. 60 sales reps on guaranteed comp (or not) costs more than that... I’m not pretending to be the expert on startups but that doesn’t look attractive enough for a company to buy them.
Click to expand...
 






anonymous said:
:D This doesn’t sound like Mr Wizard now , it sounds like keepin it real rep.

You’re as dumb as your post to think any of us have yearly guarantees. After the truth about the tactics in your recently posted junk article,we will take the market. Either way we’ll get it. Ask yourself a question, if reputable journals denied your study and you had to post I’m in New Zealand, you have a problem that the fellowship of the ring can’t solve.
Click to expand...

Ok wait what was the question?

And if we’re the fellowship of the ring, who are you guys? Golem? Sauron? Is Minerva made in Mordor? That would explain some stuff. I call dibs on Aragorn if we’re cos playing.
 






anonymous said:
:D This doesn’t sound like Mr Wizard now , it sounds like keepin it real rep.

You’re as dumb as your post to think any of us have yearly guarantees. After the truth about the tactics in your recently posted junk article,we will take the market. Either way we’ll get it. Ask yourself a question, if reputable journals denied your study and you had to post I’m in New Zealand, you have a problem that the fellowship of the ring can’t solve.
Click to expand...
 






regarding why this study wasn't printed in "reputable" journals....

I can tell you easily why it wasn't printed in JMIG. Check out who the Editor In Cheif is.... Tomasso Falcone, chairman of OBGYN at Cleveland Clinic! The JMIG editorial board wanted the study published. Falcone, due to his "ties" to Minerva has for the time being mandated that Minerva be the ablation of choice at the Clinic (which has pi$$ed off Clinic docs and some have started sending patients elsewhere for ablations so they can get NovaSure).

He faced a huge moral dilemma with this one. Publish the paper which would undermine his decision at the Clinic, or block the publication of the paper and upset the editorial board but keep the "relationship" strong with Minerva.

You can see what won out. Financial and other "ties" to industry won out and Falcone blocked the paper from being published.

https://www.jmig.org/content/edboard?code=jmig-site

see for yourself
 






Wow hardcore rep now throwing out erroneous allegations against JMIG conspiracy and Minerva influence. Read the press release and I’ll sit back and watch the Hlx surgical ship sink to the bottom where it belongs.

QUOTE="anonymous, post: 6044165"]regarding why this study wasn't printed in "reputable" journals....

I can tell you easily why it wasn't printed in JMIG. Check out who the Editor In Cheif is.... Tomasso Falcone, chairman of OBGYN at Cleveland Clinic! The JMIG editorial board wanted the study published. Falcone, due to his "ties" to Minerva has for the time being mandated that Minerva be the ablation of choice at the Clinic (which has pi$$ed off Clinic docs and some have started sending patients elsewhere for ablations so they can get NovaSure).

He faced a huge moral dilemma with this one. Publish the paper which would undermine his decision at the Clinic, or block the publication of the paper and upset the editorial board but keep the "relationship" strong with Minerva.

You can see what won out. Financial and other "ties" to industry won out and Falcone blocked the paper from being published.

https://www.jmig.org/content/edboard?code=jmig-site

see for yourself[/QUOTE]
 






anonymous said:
Somebody sounds a little MINERVOUS
Click to expand...

No. Private share holder with substantial position in HOLX since $22/share. Don’t mistake everyone visiting the board and posting as an employee or competitor. Surgical is the smallest division in the company (outside of bone density which I put in the Breast business) but I still like to understand headwinds and opportunities for investment purposes.

Enjoying the banter here. But still not sure which camp to believe.
 






I agree this is entertaining!!

Investor, think of it this way.

HOLX has got 99 problems but Minerva ain’t one...

I would not be concerned with Minerva. But I would be concerned with the 99 actual problems...
 






Nothing to see here investor move along lol

And love the response with the JMIG conspiracy theory (still doesn’t explain the other journals which rejected).

But really love the doubling down on the lie. Keep misleading the patients, the doctors, and especially the salesforce!!
 






anonymous said:
I agree this is entertaining!!

Investor, think of it this way.

HOLX has got 99 problems but Minerva ain’t one...

I would not be concerned with Minerva. But I would be concerned with the 99 actual problems...
Click to expand...

With surgical being smallest component of the portfolio I’m not overly concerned either way about their performance. However I agree there seem to be significant challenges across the entire company. Lots stemming from turnover, vacancy, and then the actual capabilities of reps being hired. Not sure when this turned into a company hiring ex payroll and copier reps. They’re making it very clear they don’t think the reps are providing much value to the company by what they’re paying, how they’re paying, and who they’re recruiting. May be time to be happy I made 70% return.
 






anonymous said:
Nothing to see here investor move along lol

And love the response with the JMIG conspiracy theory (still doesn’t explain the other journals which rejected).

But really love the doubling down on the lie. Keep misleading the patients, the doctors, and especially the salesforce!!
Click to expand...

Metrics say 1300 views and almost 500 pdf downloads in a little more than a week. That's before PubMed indexing.

https://www.dovepress.com/article_metric.php?article_id=37850
 












Silly, silly, desperate little man. Dove and parent Taylor-Francis thoroughly investigated, and absolutely did not believe, the exact same ridiculous claims (and some others that were even more silly) when you made a complaint to them in January. Be certain that their legal team thoroughly vetted approval of publication. Dove pretty much just told you to go away. They pretty much just politely told you to go away please, are not interested in any more of your nonsense, and neither is the FDA. Scared little man. You should be.

p.s. what ethical tenets was Minerva/Clapper following that allowed you to gain access to a previous version of a competitor's draft? Hmm....
 






Top Bottom
Back
Quote