To have a real, fair, statistical response to the "Second Study", see Intuitives Response to it on their web page. It mirrors the comments I made earlier and if "fair" journalism was Mr G's (I don't want to give credence to his "fair journal claim") purpose, he should also read the Intuitive response and defend his stance in light of theirs.
Hello, This study was from patients before 2010. The SI model didn't get released until the end of 2009! Don't forget that when the details of the "samples" taken from the 800,000 were compared with those that had the Da Vinci, they were younger and less obese. Do you think that might have influence the "not statistically meaningful" results? You give me 800,000 surgeries to choose from and I bet I could show that left handed, one eyed, bald surgeons had better results. (no offence to the sight or folliclly challenged individuals out there. I wear glasses and a hat to overcome my challenges. (:-))
As was stated in the Morgan Stanley Healthcare Conference call yesterday, "we believe that in our surveying of physicians and hospitals that there is a self correcting measure at the hospital level, the physicians know their own safety profiles, they know their efficacy, they know their surgical times and they're not necessarily going to be swayed by some new source that is reporting something. ("The Second Study") And I think the hospitals also have a good understanding of what their own experiences have been..."
There were other comments concerning "attorneys that are chasing cases", and those in the media that .."made a sport of chasing Intuitive Surgical", but they will in history be filed along with those that were warning Columbus not to go out too far lest he ...fall off the edge.