|
|
|
|
||
Todays PR - another example of pure amatuer hour!mind boggling a company that received FDA clearance 3 years ago and is "beginning" to sell or rent or lease a few machines issues a Press Release announcing a leading hospital system with multiple campuses "purchased PureEp". No hospital is named. No price is disclosed. No quantity is mentioned. this company has 13 executives and an "all star board". Nobody in sales , marketing, business development, corporate development, IR, Dir of marketing none of them could figure out this is a poorly issued PR that ONCE AGAIN raises more questions than it answered. If I had to guess, 2020 compensation is soon to be made public through an SEC filing. This PR provides cover ( or at least that what BSGM thinks) for the soon to be released multi million dollar pay packages and free stock doled out. This PR is meant to provide evidence of progress just before we find out how many more millions of dollars the executives, C-suite and conflicted Board were paid. Over on the BullCrap Only Board , many copy and pasted quotes from leading drs and KOLs. Here is one that has been intentionally left out. This quote comes directly from a virtual presentation made in Feb 2021. It is consistent with Clinical trial data readouts. <<<""In a blinded test against both J&J and GE EP offerings, 35.5% of respondents preferred Pure EP."">>> In other words 65% of the time PureEp is no better than other signals. It makes sense that the buyer is Mayo - we shall see. The bigger question is ...what took Mayo so long to purchase??? from a previous post This Mayo PureEp timeline is from BSGM presentation materials- 2014 -Mayo Initial pre-clinical work 2015 -First pre-clinical trials at Mayo 2017 -Mayo Strategic collaboration, 1st Beta Units, pre-FDA testing 2019- Mayo first patient cases and first clinical trial 2021 - Mayo has still not purchased PureREp I expect its coming but if PureEp is so obviously a game changer than why has it taken so long for Mayo to write a check? FDA cleared this in 2018. As stated- "...a cumulative total of 29 PURE EP™ signals out of 34 (85.3%) were rated as statistically equivalent or better for this dataset." Stated differently but accurate, 5 of the 34 were NOT statistically equivalent or better but WORSE! Meaning that 14.7% of the signals did worse versus the benchmark. Of the 29 , 35.5% selected PureEp omits the 5 signals that under performed. Missing were how many were equivalent vs how many were better? The signals are bunched together and we do not know if the better results were spread out over the patients or were they from a few. Even going off of the cherry picked data, its hard to make a case that Drs/Hospitals will be able to convince chief medical officers and hospital budget committees to buy an add on device that costs $220k and comes with an annual "maintenance fee" when it no better 64.5% of the time. When you factor back the 5 that did worse and was left out the device is NOT better 75% of the time. In other words 3 out of 4 times the PureEp is of no improvement. (and in some cases WORSE) My best guess is that Mayo received a deeply discounted deal. - BSGM needed to save face before they pivot to NeuroClear |
return to message board, top of board |