1. Almost 50 non-oncology drugs found to kill cancer cells —Chi-Med stops pancreatic cancer trial upon early success — GSK gets speedy review for one of its top drug prospects— See more on our front page news TRY TWO WEEKS OF OUR EMAIL NEWS HEADLINES FOR FREE
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Think you have witnessed fraud?Ask a Whistleblower Attorney -- a chance to discuss whistleblower-related legal issues with practicing whistleblower attorneys.
    Dismiss Notice

Minerva vs NovaSure

Discussion in 'Minerva Surgical' started by anonymous, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:35 AM.

  1. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

  2. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    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!
     
  3. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    The sideline view at ACOG-Austin this weekend should be very very entertaining!
     
  4. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Be Careful Not To Choke On Your Aspirations Director
     
  5. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

     
  6. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    clap·per
    (klăp′ər)
    n.

    3. Slang The tongue of a garrulous person.
     
  7. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Clearly you have never met him, worked for him, or even seen him in public.
     
  8. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    LMFAO!!!

    Junk data?!?!?! You mean kinda like the data you submitted to the FDA to get approval?!?! 107 patients with no control group...that's a quality study.

    Evil Empire?!?! I love it!



     
  9. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    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.
     
  10. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Now that’s a reply!!!
     
  11. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Anyone else see Minerva calling out Hologic for the dirty way the recent head-to-head study was conducted? Thoughts?
     
  12. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    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.
     
  13. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Seems possible that Minerva's necessary pricepoint reductions to maintain competitiveness will spell disaster
     
  14. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    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.
     
  15. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Somebody sounds a little MINERVOUS
     
  16. anonymous

    anonymous Guest


    Dear- “Mom Joke Guy”, I don’t think “kool aid guy” was being unreasonable. Actually I think he/she gave you some good ideas.

    It’s also a bit nuts to call a product with a 8% market share “the gold standard”... your docs won’t appreciate that script.

    But I think the main problem with Minerva is buried in your final statement “I’ll keep stealing your business”. You probably didn’t mean it, but the subconscious choice to use “stealing” instead of “winning” it’s what’s wrong with your company’s tactics. Something stolen and not properly won, can easily be found out, and returned to its rightful owner. If I need to spell out what I mean by that, here you go: all the Novasure reps have to do is correct the misinformation Minerva reps provide their doctors, and the business stolen through misinformation is immediately won back.

    Use “ease of use”, “fewer cavity assessment failures”, “no numbers to enter”, “newer technology”, etc.

    Don’t tell a surgeon that it works better than Novasure and is the new gold standard. You’re just setting them, and their patients, up for disappointment, which is exactly what Minerva has become.
     
  17. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    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.
     
  18. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Minerva rules and novasure drools!
     
  19. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    stanky. Not your assertion, nimbus.
     
  20. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Nice try with the scare tactics, but maybe you should get your facts straight....tool