I got out of IRSG at $510 when the lawyers started going after it. I first heard about NVDQ on the ISRG board from "fishdis...". I want to be invested in the Medical Device space so I bought NVDQ at 2000 shares $6 and another 1000 at $9. I like to buy and hold for a long time. I owned ISRG from 2003 to 2012. So I do not intend to sell NVDQ.
There are 2 reason to market Astral one is for the profit, but maybe even more important it to develop a sales and distribution network for Newvax and other products GALE is developing. I invest for long term.
Bob, I do not believe acquiring companies push technology, especially if they are large or dominant in the marketplace. Often they acquire to stifle competition. They may pick up the patents and own them, but often let the advances acquired... wither on the vine. Intuitive Surgical did this with Computer Motion, Squibb has did it with a Instruments for Cardiac Research, a small company here in Syracuse. I am sure I could give many other examples. Intuititive has not acquired any other company. Why? Could be because other company competes with them, or they could not add value, or because it might change their focus. Accuray did not let Tomograph die, but they were one small company acquiring another and could add value, and had a different Market target. I think Levine brings to Accuray what they need most - Marketing. Hopefully he can do the job.
Other than money what can they add? I Assume Levine has managing and marketing skills. Venture Capital firms usually invest in existing technology and talent. I will agree that Accuray lost its focus when they acquired TOMO, but now that they have turned TOMO around it would be a shame to discard it just when the division should be cash flow positive. Also announcing the Cyberknife M6 prior to it being ready for prime time production lost them current Cyberknife sales, but that was a decision made prior to Josh Levine taking over. Over the next year I expect that will be corrected. Building a health care company is a slow, complicated process. You must raise capital, develop technology, get FDA approval, get insurance and CMS approvals, build marketing and health care relationships and compete against large companies that use political influence against you.
The other posters seem a lot more intelligent than you. Do you ever have anything to add except name calling.
Transaction Summary From WSJ MarketWatch Site
Total insider purchases and sales reported to the SEC
Time frame Transactions Shares
Last 12 months 10 Purchases 1,523,943
Alex Muacevic - European CyberKnife Center...
I like probably to add for terms of future expectations what will be an interesting discussion is can modern LINAC machine and maybe particularly modern machines like the new Tomo and also the CyberKnife compete with Proton Facilities. These are facilities where I think now have absurd an higher cost ratio and I doubt that this is really enough beneficial to that it can justified to be installed and I believe maybe Eric will not have the same opinion, I don’t know but I believe the most modern and future IMRT and also robotic technologies will heavily complete with Proton Facilities and I think they will win the race.
From Eric Lartigau - Centre Oscar Lambret...
I strongly agree, but if we spend one second on Protons, just like classical medical survey, you have to demonstrate that you do better and what is actually happening in U.S. with Protons is prostate, it’s exactly it, when you get the clinical results, you have to get the clinical results you were expecting to get or you were pretending that you would be getting. If you don’t then your foot is back in the carpet.
So, in the field radiation oncology, most of the oncologists are very, very conservative people because the process is slow, toxicity is late in the patients. So we have to demonstrate very carefully that we do better. So, still today the best is Photons and best of delivery Photons. And for Protons it will take quite a long time to demonstrate that they do as good as with Photons, clinically speaking of course, so there is a still a big room there and there are I think there is quite a bright future for very sophisticated Photons machines due to what we know on clinical issues today.
My take away from what the Dr. Alex Muacevic - European CyberKnife Center and Dr. Eric Lartigau - Centre Oscar Lambret was that Proton Therapy was so much more expensive than the Cyberknife or the Tomograph Therapy. I may be way off but my guess for the size and cost of the Proton Therapy centers would be about 5 times more expensive. Like birdbob42 I would be interested to know. Thanks.
From Medpage Today: Similar Costs for Robotic, Open Mitral Valve Fix
The median length of stay in the hospital was consistently shorter in the robot-assisted group than in the open group (about 3.5 versus 5.3 days).
"Considering that the total hospital cost of robotic mitral valve repair is now similar to that of standard therapy, and that robotic repair also expedites transition from the ICU and hospital discharge, an opportunity exists to improve value in surgical care delivery using technical (robotic) innovation," the authors wrote.
My comment....... It seems like most Mitral Valve Repair should be done via DaVinci. Equal cost equal cost, faster recovery, less trauma; whats not to like?
Here are 2 comments from the Accuray (ARAY) message board About Ablattherm HIFU as a treatment for prostate cancer...
The first is by lamb_to_slaughter, an Oncoligist:
"The FDA has not approved the use of HIFU for prostate cancer, but that has not prevented otherwise good urologists I know from personally flying pts to Cancun or the Dominican Republic for such treatment for 30K cash, with 8K going to the urologist. Since they would take 3 pts at a time it's not a bad way to spend a weekend in Cancun. It's a disgrace, but it illustrates what I've been trying to say on this board (and how convincing urologists can be to pts - these guys which 30K to spend are not idiots).
I am hardly an expert on HIFU. I only hear second hand from my urologists who see pts who had HIFU. They say the incidence and intensity of pelvic/perineal pain is underreported, that catheters must be used for at least 2 weeks, that obstruction from necrotic tissue can occur for several months post-tx, and that impotence and short-term incontinence are common."
And another from still_one:
"It is more invasive. In addition, if you are talking about PCa, it is not feasible for large prostates.
It also requires general anesthesia, and an overnight hospital stay. There is also a lot more data on external radiation, including cyberknife than HIFU. From what I have seen data is mixed anedotely on HIFU compared to cyberknife or other forms of photon or proton radiation. "
You are exactly correct! In addition the Medical Device Tax which was passed to help pay for Obamacare will only kill innovation which comes from small companies many who are not yet cash flow positive and investors risking their capital. If 2.5 percent of sales go to the government it increases the risk.
The House Republicans passed a bill repealing the Medical Device Tax over a year ago, Harry Reid refused to bring it to the floor of the Senate. Now there is a good chance it will be repealed, as it should be with the rest of the nightmare of Obamacare: a 2000 page law put together by Congressional staffers of one political party with no debate and had to be passed "so we could find out what was in it" in the wee hours of a weekend morning.
Things that irritates me the most is that Obama promised that the law would be put online for several days before it was voted on. Where was the Due Diligence??? So what we have now is an unworkable monstrosity.
Birdbob42... In addition to Radiating healthy adjacent tissue. Protons pass through all the tissue in front of the target, ans can affect it to some degree. It also adds another variable to be controlled, namely, making sure the power is correct for the depth of the tumor.
I know you don't vote for him but It seems like Harry Reid won't negotiate or let anything come to the floor of the Senate. He and Pelosi are the best arguments there ever were for term limits. Imagine passing an unread 2000 page bill that controls 17% of the economy, so we can find out what is in it. Where was the due diligence???
Even now the House has passed a bill follows the original bill of making Congress subject to it and gets rid of the Medical Device tax, which is a killer for medical innovation. Where is the compromise???
With Reid in Control of the Senate this will be the 5th year that there has been no Congressional Budget passed. If you are going to demand Congress do their job. You are looking at the wrong side of the isle.
"Perhaps the ultimate next-step solution is to invent a CK machine that uses protons, rather than photons?? Just a thought from a non-engineer."
It might, but you are talking about generating enough electron volts to power a particle 2000 times the mass of a photon. That is why such huge facilities are needed for proton therapy. It just may not be realistic to engineer it smaller.
Medical Device companies have made several advances that have improved medical care for the patient. They have made possible treatments and cures that were not possible in the past. They have reduced treatment times, complications, inconvenience and cost to the patient.
The medical Device Tax is an Innovation Killer. Small cash flow negative companies generate many of the medical care advances. If you tax them when they are just starting to generate revenue--- you will dry up the high risk investments which makes the R&D possible in the first place.
The tax is also a Job Killer a small Medical Device Company here in Central New York moved 80 jobs to Mexico this past summer because of the tax.
Those in favor claim the medical device companies will get a windfall from Obamacare. I seriously doubt that, but in the end all taxes get passed onto the consumer.
Furthermore, what about the windfall to the Pharmaceutical and Health Insurance Companies --- Why single out Medical Device companies???
Our Congressional Representative and 2 New York Senators voted for Obamacare and the Medical Device tax. Now they along with 16 other Senate Democrats have broken ranks with the Democrat party and want it repealed. I guess they were "for it before they were against it". I suppose that is what happens when you have to pass a 2000 page bill in the middle of a weekend night of "so you can find out what is in it."
the summer of 2012, the House Republican passed a bill repealing the Medical device tax. Harry Reid would not let it come to the floor of the Senate. At least the Republicans realized medical device advances will not occur if we tax the small innovative Medical Device companies out of existence.
So my answer to you is.... " NO the Medical Device Tax must GO!"
Having more people insured may mean more money for Health Care Providers, because they, taxpayers, and private pay patients have been subsidizing the uninsured. It also means more money to Health Insurers because they will write more policies.
It provides no such advantages for Medical Device Companies. The best health care is that which treats illness in the least amount of time for the least amount of dollars.
This is what Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Companies do. To tax one component of the health care industry tthat makes possible many of the advances that have occurred in the half century is wrong headed.
The Profitable Medical Device and Medical Supply companies will pass the cost onto the consumers. Many small unprofitable companies will wither and die because they will not be able to raise risk capital to support their cash burn.
This will stifle innovation and health care productivity. But as you so cavalierly say, "c'est la vie". Your primary concern is for government regulation, the patient, the taxpayer and good health care are secondary.
You like Obama understand nothing about free market dynamics.
Blyndsquirrel1 had you pegged, you are just another Obama shill.