I can't complete against Verifi

Sounds like you 2 would be good tea baggers together!

 

thinking out loud your fantasies again, huh?

 

Exactly....just as I thought. Troll.

 

why does anyone with a Verifi derivative need a validation study? For 3 years, Panorama reps have been fabricating nonsense and promoting it as truth: good Non-reportable rates, good in low fetal fractions, good False positive rates, good 22q performance, good turn times, good in high BMIs.....

What exactly did you all "validate" to get the BS marketing literature you produce on the above topics?
-8-12% Non-reportable rates - w/ paternal swab
-25% non-reportable rate in fetal fractions 9-9.9%
-favorable false positive rates when you exclude biological "issues" in your validation study: ie. CPM
-good turn times - yeah... ok.
-good in high BMI? - patient's over 200lbs had a 78% success rate with Panorama
-good 22q performance - PPV of 8%

are you pulling this data from your wonderful 130 patient validation study - or some internal nonsense you all made up?

well done.

 

Wow - where did you pull this data from? 2011? The fact you added paternal cheek swab in here and we haven't been using that or including in our kits since last year just shows how far away from the truth your company has lead you to believe. Nice to know what you guys are saying though. Our PPV was 5% for 22Q FYI - until our most recent publication in December where we showed 18-49% PPV. 49% after we reflex to higher depth of read. I'm sure your company hasn't brought you up to speed on that. Our failure rate/redraw rate is also now published at 3-4% and considering we don't make any bogus "anueploidy suspected" calls, it's pretty good. 25% non reportable rate in FF of 9-9.9% is just bogus all around. Where did you get that gem? We report out FF as low as 2.8%. Considering higher BMI patients have a tough time of producing enough cfDNA, it makes sense that we can report out much lower FF's therefore, our rate of reportable result for heavier patients may be higher than other tests who report out needing FF higher. Or, you could be Progenity in which you don't measure or report FF....at any rate. You are completely mislead guy....nice try.

 

site your sources.... what published, peer-reviewed data do you have supporting your 3-4% redraw rate?

The fact you are proud of an 18-49% confidence interval for 22q is pathetic.

yes, you report cases down to 2.8% ff.... but fail greater than 25% of the time. Again, prove me wrong.... without eliminating tough to call cases - which your company does, in every "study" they produce....

Deeper sequencing? You wish. Genome owns your lousy platform, and produced a lower failure rate using only one tube of blood (3%).

I can quote 2011's data all day. the fact that our 2011 data surpasses your current information, is sad all in its own.

Continue selling a "me too" product.

I laugh when an office uses Panorama. Truly, the joke of the industry.

 

Side note - why include the paternal cheek swab... your reps were telling offices they weren't necessary even when they were in the box. Which is why Quest and Progenity dumped your platform - far too many failures - even with a "free" test to patients.

 

kills me. you guys are all washed up when this new FOB test comes out. it takes poop samples. it was designed with people like KS in mind. it can tell if you're going to be a shit head.

 

he's quasi-depressed, gender-confused, transtesticle liberal. what's so hard to understand?

 

so what's up with this email blast from natera they sent out regarding illumina?

 

Just a reminder of what a trash product looks like - making sure everyone knows about that crap study they put out and how all the other 13 labs that use the platform are leaching off it like its a big deal. Luckily, in most offices, the damage is already done.

 

can you slightly elaborate on this?

 

Trash product is labeled from Natera. Funny how ALL the other labs use MPSS...world-wide. Those who used and tried the famed SNP platform from Natera, dumped it....

Keep reaching, and producing internal statistical and pitching them as real. Natera's peer reviewed literature is trash.