Then you just know it had to be bad. For example, the trial halt news came on a Friday.
How does that compare to OMT?
Looks like nobody can refute this point. Will low efficacy ultimately doom thus treatment? Even if it gets approved, most people will be inclined to choose meds over surgery, especially if the meds are seen as being more efficacious.
I have to say in this debate, BM wins hands down. BM uses reasoning to discuss the science and reasons why C-Pulse may not be preventing HF deaths. Ex uses and hominem attacks, and seems to base his faith in SSH on a couple of medical opinions he's had in the past as well as the opinion of analysts, and we know analysts tend to be right about 50% of the time. That's being generous.
Can C-Pulse be modified to improve LVEF? Thoughts?
Just another nail in the coffin for Sunshine Heart. Oh well, at least the insiders got rich! God bless America!
I hate to admit it, but I have to agree with BM here. Of course the company is downplaying the seriousnesness, and the analysts seem to be basing their views on the best case scenario.
But doesn't thecclinical study exclude people with those other conditions related to heart failure? Why would they include people like that in the trial?
Can you explain to me if it turns out the deaths were from heart failure how that can be seen as any better than if the deaths were caused by the device? Isn't the whole point if the device to prevent death?
Point 1: it is still possible that the preliminary findings are failing to identify a problem with the device that could be causing the deaths
Point 2: even if these people weren't killed by the device itself, if they died from heart failure (the condition it is supposed to treat) then the device is not doing a good enough job
Point 3: even if the device didn't cause the deaths and even if the patients didn't die of heart failure, doctors and patients may be reluctant to try the devicedevice and new enrollments may dry up
Point 4: the delay may prevent them from getting the loan they just negotiated with Silicon Valley Bank, possibly a resulting in bankruptcy or massive dilution at very low prices
Point 5: there may be lawsuits as a result of this fiasco, which will be a financial burden and distract the company from moving C-Pulse forward
If you can come up with convincing responses to these points I may hang onto my shares.
Any ideas when we will have a definitive answer if the deaths were caused by the device?