if you think we’re scared of junk data audited and sponsored by the evil empire and rejected by credible journals, you’d be mistaken.
None of you idiots can read your own studies, the details of this one will bury you this time. Keep drinking the kool aid!
clap·per
(klăp′ər)
n.
3. Slang The tongue of a garrulous person.
if you think we’re scared of junk data audited and sponsored by the evil empire and rejected by credible journals, you’d be mistaken.
None of you idiots can read your own studies, the details of this one will bury you this time. Keep drinking the kool aid!
Y’all are cracking me up. Garrulous?? What is this, Hamlet??!
NovaSure is a better product than Minerva. It’s obvious. The science is better, the studies are better, and most docs that tried Minerva have come back to Novasure. Smart Minerva reps have already figured that out. It’s not your fault. Skalnyi(sp?) and Clapper told a compelling story. A false story.
The “evil empire” thing is a good idea. Minerva should have come out with a “David v Goliath” approach. That would have worked! Instead, y’all came out saying “we have the new Goliath!”, or “introducing Goliath 2.0”. Dumb.
Time to dust off the resumes. It’s been a good few years but this start-up was a non- start.
Anyone else see Minerva calling out Hologic for the dirty way the recent head-to-head study was conducted? Thoughts?
Wow here is kool aid guy above. Thanks for that. You are totally right, the Hologic sponsored studies are better than the Novasure FDA studies. When you remove failures, classify hysterectomies as success, control study variables, etc, you definitely can touch Minerva efficacy rates.
Unfortunately for you Minerva is the Gold Standard now, you’re a dinosaur with no new tricks. Blue paint job, and your mom telling you that your the best. You suck.
Keep drinking kool aid and I’ll keep stealing your business.
stanky. Not your assertion, nimbus.Has anybody actually read the latest report in detail?
How exactly is it that one of the study's principal investigators lists a consultancy for Minerva as a conflict of interest in the disclosures?!?!? Yipes.
Sounds like rats jumping ship, from all decks. How embarrassing; that's gotta sting a little...
Ouch.
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.
