"Minimally invasive" - wow where do they get off making WILD claims like that. If these misrepresentations are so prevalent it should be easy for you to find an example. Show me a link to something that originated with ISRG that is demonstrably a "false claim" and not just your opinion.
All of the things that you are CLAIMING the "sales" reps are saying are in fact true and the fact that surgeons need to be proficient in using their tool before using it on a patient does not make those things a lie. Show me where ISRG says that a surgeon is proficient with daVinci after a two day seminar? Your misrepresentation of their claims does not make them so. SHOW US.
Does the marketing copy for CAT earth moving equipment deal with the need for the operators to be properly trained? No - what you are proposing is a ridiculous and artificial standard. Should surgeons be trained, yes. Should there be standards for certifying robotic surgeons? Almost certainly. Is the place for this on a billboard? Get real.
I'm not actually a fan of marketing medical products direct to consumers but it's legal, and widely done. There is absolutely no evidence that ISRG is doing anything more than informing patients. Show me EVIDENCE of "false claims" they are making. Less pain, faster recovery, etc. These are SUPPORTED claims. The results for cancer control, continence and sexual function are less clear in that there are many studies showing comparable results, some showing better results and a few showing inferior results. Further these results are changing over time. Initially most studies showed comparable results but significantly longer OR times. More recently the results are skewing to slightly superior results and barely longer OR times. So ISRG picks the studies that support their claim - of course they do, as does EVERY other medical company. That's not news and doesn't make their claims a lie. Do they have supporters in the medical community who have a financial relationship with the company. Absolutely, as does EVERY other medical company.
Show me EVIDENCE of "false claims" they are making. So far you have offered only opinion, hypotheticals, and hearsay. "I just talked to three urologists and they said <blah, blah, blah>" - give me a break. You've been fabricating, this kind of "evidence" just as you initially created multiple IDs.
You are conveniently attributing ALL hospital advertising and marketing copy to ISRG as though they are not responsible for their own copy, standards, claims, etc.
How is it that you have decided to impose an artificially high standard of conduct on ISRG that is different than the standard for any other medical company? Why is there a different standard for a surgeon learning daVinci than say an experienced surgeon who decided to take up traditional laparoscopy, or using a surgical stapler, or doing an unfamiliar surgical technique of ANY kind? And why not also count the benefits of daVinci in the equation and not only focus on these two aspects (continence and sexual function) as though they exist in a vacuum and the less pain, less scarring, etc. The truth is that a patient might still be better off having a daVinci procedure done by a surgeon doing his 10th procedure vs an open procedure being done by the same surgeon because of the other benefits.
You are either short, bitter that the local daVinci hospital is stealing your patients, have an axe to grind with the company or some combination of the above. What else would prompt you to come on this board originally posting under multiple IDs making specious accusations about "false claims", "off-label uses", profit driven disregard for patient safety and lawsuits?
Yes you are quite right - it takes time to gain proficiency in any skill, even in laproscopic surgery, perhaps especially laproscopic. Robotic surgery is no different in this respect.
This learning curve scare is just the latest tactic of the nay sayers. It looks very damaging at first sight but is no more important than the learning curve of laproscopic - perhaps is not even as difficult as robotics is intuitive not counter intuitive like laproscopic.
It might frieghten off some less well informed patients, but I guess not the professional surgeons or intellegent patients. And the truth will surface very quickly. The frauds like Dr Hu will be shown up what they are.
There is no more disreputable half truth than the totally flawed report from Dr Hu who seems to have his own agenda. Is it possible that he was rejected form a robotics training course- just a thought.
This week looks like the last stand of the nay sayers.