Yet again the Martino single hospital survey is referred to as a peer reviewed study in the financial press. This time by Motley Fool writer Brian Stoffel. None of these writers seem to know to look for population control to avoid assumptions of causational correlation. Comparing sicker non robotic patients to healthy robotic patients does not mean that the robot contributed to lower readmissions for the already healthier robotic patients. If the financial press wants to follow medicine they should learn the basics of science so they do not become tools for frauds like Martino and intuitive surgical.
PS I made a killing last year buying Oct puts at the beginning of the year, and will do so again this year. All the hospitals that bought this device now have egg on their face as the depreciation eats away at their income statements as they spend more for the same reimbursement and outcomes. Meanwhile the sales reps push them to try more dangerous experimentation on their patients to grow volume into general surgery. No one in the US, Japan, Northern Europe, Australia, are buying. Only a few hospital left in England and east asia. Even their auditor quit last week, and they will not even offer a guess at sales volumes this quarter.
You have never offered any information on this message board. All you write is personal attacks against people you disagree with. If you have any information that counters what I say, please share it. Exchanging and verifying information with people you agree and disagree with in a civil manner is the purpose of the discussion board. I have no expectation that you will offer any information related to the valuation of this stock, but please do surprise me if you are able.
Are you claiming that it wasn't peer reviewed? This was a study published in the "Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology". I would encourage you write them if you have evidence of fraud. Be sure to cc Intuitive and Dr. Martino.