Natera going with an IPO?

Quote

Anonymous said:
You guys are all crazy!! Natera is going to be as big as BMS one day! The relationships that have been formed and partnerships with huge hospital and research centers around the world is by far ahead of any other lab out there. This is huge news with oncology and our IPO will be one of the most successful in the history of IPO's for biotechnology. Trust me. This is a great place to be at this exact moment. I just hope some of you can hold on to your jobs long enough to benefit from it.
Click to expand...

Your management must be really desperate. Let’s look a little closer at these claims. In terms of your partnerships with hospital and research centers around the world, page 5 of your S-1 filing lists your partnership with world-renowned cancer centers: Feinstein Institute of LIJ, Stanford, Einstein, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, and Cancer Research UK. Nice list, right?
Your competitor Sequenom also has liquid biopsy research efforts. If you navigate to: http://sequenom.investorroom.com/, download their corporate presentation at the 2015 Jeffries Healthcare Conference and look at their collaborations with their world-renowned cancer centers on page 26: UCSD, Memorial Sloan Kettering, MD Anderson, Dana Farber, and Harvard.
So which company has stronger partnerships?
Here is a list from the U.S. News and World Report (http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings/cancer)
1. Memorial Sloan Kettering
2. MD Anderson
3. Mayo Clinic
4. Dana Farber
5. Johns Hopkins
6. University of Washington
7. Mass General (part of Harvard)
8. UCSF
9. UCLA
10. Stanford
So you come up with your own conclusions. By the way, they are launching their liquid biopsy offering (albeit research use only) later on this year. See page 24 of the investor presentation. How about you guys?
 



Anonymous said:
Your management must be really desperate. Let’s look a little closer at these claims. In terms of your partnerships with hospital and research centers around the world, page 5 of your S-1 filing lists your partnership with world-renowned cancer centers: Feinstein Institute of LIJ, Stanford, Einstein, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, and Cancer Research UK. Nice list, right?
Your competitor Sequenom also has liquid biopsy research efforts. If you navigate to: http://sequenom.investorroom.com/, download their corporate presentation at the 2015 Jeffries Healthcare Conference and look at their collaborations with their world-renowned cancer centers on page 26: UCSD, Memorial Sloan Kettering, MD Anderson, Dana Farber, and Harvard.
So which company has stronger partnerships?
Here is a list from the U.S. News and World Report (http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings/cancer)
1. Memorial Sloan Kettering
2. MD Anderson
3. Mayo Clinic
4. Dana Farber
5. Johns Hopkins
6. University of Washington
7. Mass General (part of Harvard)
8. UCSF
9. UCLA
10. Stanford
So you come up with your own conclusions. By the way, they are launching their liquid biopsy offering (albeit research use only) later on this year. See page 24 of the investor presentation. How about you guys?
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...............
 



Anonymous said:
Your management must be really desperate. Let’s look a little closer at these claims. In terms of your partnerships with hospital and research centers around the world, page 5 of your S-1 filing lists your partnership with world-renowned cancer centers: Feinstein Institute of LIJ, Stanford, Einstein, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, and Cancer Research UK. Nice list, right?
Your competitor Sequenom also has liquid biopsy research efforts. If you navigate to: http://sequenom.investorroom.com/, download their corporate presentation at the 2015 Jeffries Healthcare Conference and look at their collaborations with their world-renowned cancer centers on page 26: UCSD, Memorial Sloan Kettering, MD Anderson, Dana Farber, and Harvard.
So which company has stronger partnerships?
Here is a list from the U.S. News and World Report (http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings/cancer)
1. Memorial Sloan Kettering
2. MD Anderson
3. Mayo Clinic
4. Dana Farber
5. Johns Hopkins
6. University of Washington
7. Mass General (part of Harvard)
8. UCSF
9. UCLA
10. Stanford
So you come up with your own conclusions. By the way, they are launching their liquid biopsy offering (albeit research use only) later on this year. See page 24 of the investor presentation. How about you guys?
Click to expand...

They will offer a nice test...but ours will be better by the way we sequence in comparison. Ask Sequenom why their stock price is such shit if they have all these great partnerships. Ask Sequenom why they have almost no market share for NIPT right now compared to other companies? Ask Seq about the lawsuit and fraudulent activity that went on, lying to investors about their tests, when getting validated, only to show that it actually sucks. Ask Sequenom about the lawsuit over their "patent" that they just lost to Ariosa about 4 days ago. Please. Get off our board troll. Hahahahhaahahahahahahahah
 









Anonymous said:
Your management must be really desperate. Let’s look a little closer at these claims. In terms of your partnerships with hospital and research centers around the world, page 5 of your S-1 filing lists your partnership with world-renowned cancer centers: Feinstein Institute of LIJ, Stanford, Einstein, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, and Cancer Research UK. Nice list, right?
Your competitor Sequenom also has liquid biopsy research efforts. If you navigate to: http://sequenom.investorroom.com/, download their corporate presentation at the 2015 Jeffries Healthcare Conference and look at their collaborations with their world-renowned cancer centers on page 26: UCSD, Memorial Sloan Kettering, MD Anderson, Dana Farber, and Harvard.
So which company has stronger partnerships?
Here is a list from the U.S. News and World Report (http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings/cancer)
1. Memorial Sloan Kettering
2. MD Anderson
3. Mayo Clinic
4. Dana Farber
5. Johns Hopkins
6. University of Washington
7. Mass General (part of Harvard)
8. UCSF
9. UCLA
10. Stanford
So you come up with your own conclusions. By the way, they are launching their liquid biopsy offering (albeit research use only) later on this year. See page 24 of the investor presentation. How about you guys?
Click to expand...


Ha ha

You are all screwed!!!!!
 



Anonymous said:
They will offer a nice test...but ours will be better by the way we sequence in comparison. Ask Sequenom why their stock price is such shit if they have all these great partnerships. Ask Sequenom why they have almost no market share for NIPT right now compared to other companies? Ask Seq about the lawsuit and fraudulent activity that went on, lying to investors about their tests, when getting validated, only to show that it actually sucks. Ask Sequenom about the lawsuit over their "patent" that they just lost to Ariosa about 4 days ago. Please. Get off our board troll. Hahahahhaahahahahahahahah
Click to expand...

Management.....don't you have better things to do with your time? And before you say anything about mine....I'm spending my time sending out my resume. Our management sucks, our product sucks and our company sucks. Thank you.
 






Anonymous said:
Management.....don't you have better things to do with your time? And before you say anything about mine....I'm spending my time sending out my resume. Our management sucks, our product sucks and our company sucks. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Sweet! One less person management has to worry about paying unemployment for when the consolidation takes place. Good riddance.
 






Anonymous said:
They will offer a nice test...but ours will be better by the way we sequence in comparison. Ask Sequenom why their stock price is such shit if they have all these great partnerships. Ask Sequenom why they have almost no market share for NIPT right now compared to other companies? Ask Seq about the lawsuit and fraudulent activity that went on, lying to investors about their tests, when getting validated, only to show that it actually sucks. Ask Sequenom about the lawsuit over their "patent" that they just lost to Ariosa about 4 days ago. Please. Get off our board troll. Hahahahhaahahahahahahahah
Click to expand...

One of your publications, “Clinical experience and follow-up with large scale single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy testing” was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in November of 2014. Charles M. Strom, MD, PhD, senior medical director of genetics at Quest Diagnostics, was one of the authors of the paper and entrusted with the data of this study.
In a June 16, 2014 press release announcing Quest’s new partnership with Sequenom, he was quoted as saying:
"The MaterniT21 PLUS test stands out for its technological sophistication and clinical usefulness, and is the most well validated to date of the NIPT offerings. Offering access to this test strongly aligns with our strategy to deliver guideline-backed testing services based on the most advanced technologies in order to improve healthcare for patients."
So why did Quest leave you guys? Maybe he didn’t like the data that he saw in that paper.
An earlier post in this thread was promoting your company’s exciting technology, pipeline, and enhancements to your current suite of products.
If things are so awesome, why did your Vice President of Product Development abruptly leave less than a month ago and not be part of “one of the most successful in the history of IPO’s for biotechnology?” It’s never a good sign when a senior member of your executive team bails right before a planned IPO.
 



Anonymous said:
One of your publications, “Clinical experience and follow-up with large scale single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy testing” was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in November of 2014. Charles M. Strom, MD, PhD, senior medical director of genetics at Quest Diagnostics, was one of the authors of the paper and entrusted with the data of this study.
In a June 16, 2014 press release announcing Quest’s new partnership with Sequenom, he was quoted as saying:
"The MaterniT21 PLUS test stands out for its technological sophistication and clinical usefulness, and is the most well validated to date of the NIPT offerings. Offering access to this test strongly aligns with our strategy to deliver guideline-backed testing services based on the most advanced technologies in order to improve healthcare for patients."
So why did Quest leave you guys? Maybe he didn’t like the data that he saw in that paper.
An earlier post in this thread was promoting your company’s exciting technology, pipeline, and enhancements to your current suite of products.
If things are so awesome, why did your Vice President of Product Development abruptly leave less than a month ago and not be part of “one of the most successful in the history of IPO’s for biotechnology?” It’s never a good sign when a senior member of your executive team bails right before a planned IPO.
Click to expand...

Yeah......why did Quest get rid of us???
 



And Quest loves Mat21 so much they came out with their own test leaving Mat21 at the alter.

Several of the posts here scream of trolls and folks unwilling to pull their head out of their ass it is pathetic.
 






Yeah, let's ask Quest how their QNatal test is doing shall we? If M21 was so great, they wouldn't have dumped them in just 4 months of using their crappy technology. It's not even close when comparing NIPT test with M21 and Panorama. Beyond politics and people resigning, you can use any peer reviewed, published article out there and put ours with Seq. and the differences are vast. And whoever the guy who helped with the Dar paper who worked for Quest, of course he is going to be quoted as saying that. What were his options?! "Uh, yeah I mean, I work for Quest and we are partnering with M21 because they offered us the most money as part of our cut. I mean, the test isn't the best I've seen but it's pretty good!" Hahahahaha. Trolls on trolls on trolls. Go home Seq. you are drunk.
 



Anonymous said:
Yeah, let's ask Quest how their QNatal test is doing shall we? If M21 was so great, they wouldn't have dumped them in just 4 months of using their crappy technology. It's not even close when comparing NIPT test with M21 and Panorama. Beyond politics and people resigning, you can use any peer reviewed, published article out there and put ours with Seq. and the differences are vast. And whoever the guy who helped with the Dar paper who worked for Quest, of course he is going to be quoted as saying that. What were his options?! "Uh, yeah I mean, I work for Quest and we are partnering with M21 because they offered us the most money as part of our cut. I mean, the test isn't the best I've seen but it's pretty good!" Hahahahaha. Trolls on trolls on trolls. Go home Seq. you are drunk.
Click to expand...

you are one sick natera manager...................ks, is this you?
 



Anonymous said:
Yeah, let's ask Quest how their QNatal test is doing shall we? If M21 was so great, they wouldn't have dumped them in just 4 months of using their crappy technology. It's not even close when comparing NIPT test with M21 and Panorama. Beyond politics and people resigning, you can use any peer reviewed, published article out there and put ours with Seq. and the differences are vast. And whoever the guy who helped with the Dar paper who worked for Quest, of course he is going to be quoted as saying that. What were his options?! "Uh, yeah I mean, I work for Quest and we are partnering with M21 because they offered us the most money as part of our cut. I mean, the test isn't the best I've seen but it's pretty good!" Hahahahaha. Trolls on trolls on trolls. Go home Seq. you are drunk.
Click to expand...

You get a bat fat piece of cake with lots of icing. Stop by my office when you're in town next.

Love DC
 



Anonymous said:
It's not even close when comparing NIPT test with M21 and Panorama. Beyond politics and people resigning, you can use any peer reviewed, published article out there and put ours with Seq. and the differences are vast.
Click to expand...

In an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this year, cfDNA tests were compared in this independent, head-to-head study (level playing field). MaterniT21 had a higher positive predictive value than Panorama.
Click on the link to the supplementary materials from here: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1412222
Full results are listed in table S1.
 



Anonymous said:
In an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this year, cfDNA tests were compared in this independent, head-to-head study (level playing field). MaterniT21 had a higher positive predictive value than Panorama.
Click on the link to the supplementary materials from here: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1412222
Full results are listed in table S1.
Click to expand...

I show that paper all the time and I work for Natera. Doctors laugh when they realize the incidence rate of T21 would have to be 1/4 for those numbers to hold water. Puffery at its finest and no one is falling for it. Cute. Nice try.
 






Top Bottom
Back
Quote