Seeking Alpha

Brian Marckx

View as an RSS Feed
View Brian Marckx's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Turnaround Strategy Being Implemented At Competitive Technologies [View article]
    I'm guessing efficacy of Calmare and insurers' reimbursement decisions will not be determined by the actions of prior management and the company they kept or by the education of the developer. "Phoney scientist" - haha -why, because you question whether he has a PhD or because somehow you've "proven" that Calmare isn't effective? "Employ ex-cons and ex-FINRA violators" - who's on CTTC's payroll that fits that description? - or is that a reference to prior management and the company they kept?

    As far financing with convertibles - you may be new to the micro-space or companies with lower credit quality - but convertibles are a pretty darn common with these companies. In-the-money conversion prices - yea if that's going to throw you for a loop, you better steer clear of this space. You might get scared with 200% warrant coverage too - but that's also not uncommon for penny stock companies that need to stay afloat. Factoring receivables -yep that happens too.

    So now you think Calmare should have sold itself despite not being covered with insurance reimbursement. But your earlier comments were that the out of pocket cost is too much for patients to bear. So you've again seemed to contradict yourself. You need to be careful about that or someone may question your credibility. Maybe you're new to the med device space too - but ex-reimbursement, particularly for small co's with no marketing budget, devices don't typically "sell themselves".

    Now on the subject of your motives and credibility. Well I admit that maybe I was a bit unfair questioning your motives just because this is the only article that you commented on under this "bearcrusher" profile, that this profile had zero followers and you were following no one.

    And I wouldn't necessarily hold it against you that all of your comments have had an obvious negative slant and your flip-flopping on whether Calmare should or shouldn't sell itself based on your argument at the time. I could even ignore the sarcasm and hyperbole.

    However, I have a difficult time overlooking the (at least) four and a half years that you've been posting similarly disparaging comments about CTTC and Calmare on various websites under various pseudonyms without identifying who you are. Let's see, you've posted using the names "rrtzmd" and "Vaffan-Coulo" on investorshub - and not only have you posted about CTTC on investorhub under those names, you've posted 2,613 times about CTTC under those names on investorhub. 2,613 times!! And I have not found one of those comments to be anything other than negative to CTTC or Calmare of both. But you don't just limit yourself to investorhub or to just the "bearcrusher", "rrtzmd" or Vaffan-Colou" names - you seem to post just about anywhere that you can about CTTC. Your comments under your "rayzmdAKArrtzmd" on previous articles about CTTC on Seeking Alpha are of course similarly negatively slanted. So it appears you've been busy waging a one-man campaign against CTTC for several years now. I'd say that reeks of an agenda.

    And more specifically to your credibility. I can get past the fact that none of your various names that you post under include a bio. But what I have a difficult time overlooking is that when you were asked what your background was on Seeking Alpha you answered (on 10/7/2010) that "I have a MD from Harvard and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Princeton" but when you were asked the same question on investorhub you answered (on 5/22/11) that "I have a MD from Harvard and a PhD in neuroscience from Columbia". So was it Princeton or Columbia - or neither?? Here's the links to refresh your memory - which seems to be slipping given that you apparently can't remember where you went to school......http://bit.ly/1lxSadr (posting as "rrtzmd") and http://seekingalpha.co... (posting as rayzmdAKArrtzmd").

    Yea that "minor" inconsistency may not play well in your favor in terms of credibility. Ohh, and weren't you questioning Marineo's credibility and his educational background. That's precious!!!
    Mar 31 09:07 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turnaround Strategy Being Implemented At Competitive Technologies [View article]
    I'm guessing efficacy of Calmare and insurers' reimbursement decisions will not be determined by the actions of prior management and the company they kept or by the education of the developer. So, no that doesn't prompt me to revisit my neutral rec.
    Mar 28 08:20 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turnaround Strategy Being Implemented At Competitive Technologies [View article]
    Yes I would agree, the more facts the better - but turning the Marineo PhD thing into a credibility issue for CTTC seems like a huge stretch.
    And I'd agree that the fraud or alleged fraud that you cite is worthy of mention. But let's be clear, that happened under prior management.
    Mar 27 09:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sanuwave: Sell-Off Unwarranted, Look for Stock to Outperform [View article]
    - Supplemental study has been tracking expected timelines - with early anecdotal feedback positive
    - Initial pivotal study barely missed endpoints and treatment boosts with supplemental trial could very well hit the efficacy endpoints
    - Raised enough $ to get them to FDA filing
    - Huge market for DFU and dermaPACE looks more efficacious than dominant device

    In anything, there's more reason to own it at $0.60
    Mar 27 09:36 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turnaround Strategy Being Implemented At Competitive Technologies [View article]
    Thanks for the primer on Reg FD. I don't see how you conclude there's a "secret plan". It's common that companies designing trials will wait until the trial designs have been finalized before they announce them to the public and trial designs usually don't come together overnight.

    As far as the Marineo PhD - as I answered the other poster, I don't know if he has a PhD but whether he does or does not has absolutely no bearing on my outlook for Calmare or CTTC. Nowhere in my article do I state or imply that Marineo's educational background, or Marineo as the inventor of Calmare, adds any credibility to CTTC or Calmare or to the potential of CTTC or Calmare. And Marineo is not part of CTTC. So whether or not he has a PhD has zero relevance to my article.
    Mar 26 08:28 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turnaround Strategy Being Implemented At Competitive Technologies [View article]
    So there's a difference between intended use and specific indications. I'm not going to spend anymore time educating you so you're going to have to do your own homework.

    C/n talk specifics - yep, Reg FD. So wait and see what the co. says.

    Int'l distribution agreement, yes I did cover that.

    So, again, you've added no value and again, you haven't disclosed your agenda - but don't deny that there is one (did you mention "shady"???).
    "I don't recall seekingalpha requiring someone have an "agenda" to discuss a company" - hey, I even already covered that when I said, "It's unfortunate that SA allows anonymous profiles to post comments with obvious slants without disclosing their interests in doing so." Again, you manage to offer nothing new!
    Mar 25 05:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turnaround Strategy Being Implemented At Competitive Technologies [View article]
    Actually PMA is also required for Class II devices for which there isn't a predicate device which is substantially equivalent. CTTC will be seeking specific indications for Calmare that are different from the intended uses listed in the 510(k). Which will require PMA.
    I specifically asked mgmt about the sham issue relative to clinical trials and, although they c/n talk specifics, I was satisfied with the answer. So wait and see.
    Yep, in an ideal world payers would have all kinds of info at their fingertips to make reimbursement decisions. Unfortunately in the real world that's not the way it works. They typically want clinical data to support efficacy.

    So please address my last comment - and disclose what your agenda is?
    Mar 25 09:24 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turnaround Strategy Being Implemented At Competitive Technologies [View article]
    Yeah well despite all that scary sounding language ("breached fiduciary duties, "null and avoid", etc) the fact is that the outcome of this to CTTC could be a) detrimental b) neutral or c) positive.

    To me, more pressing near-term concerns are something that ARE known. That being that the company needs to raise add'l capital and reduce cash burn.

    Your comments re: CTTC/Calmare have an obvious negative slant with arguably limited (or no) added-value. You have zero followers and have only commented on this CTTC article under your "bearcrusher" profile - so it's obvious your profile was just set up to post negative comments about CTTC/Calmare.

    So that begs the question about whether you have an agenda. Are you short the stock? Do you sell a device that competes with Calmare? Are you a disgruntled ex-employee?

    It's unfortunate that SA allows anonymous profiles to post comments with obvious slants without disclosing their interests in doing so. Readers can decide for themselves how much value you have added with your comments and can decide whether it appears you have an agenda. I think much more value would have been provided if you had disclosed what your underlying interest was - given that you obviously just set up this profile to comment on this one article, there's a clear agenda. Of course now you can fill in information under this bearcrusher pseudonym that makes it sound as if you're a casual investor (or whoever) and have no real agenda, but I'm guessing readers may see through that.
    Mar 21 08:23 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turnaround Strategy Being Implemented At Competitive Technologies [View article]
    Yep, I'd bet this is a pretty insignificant concern particularly relative to the other challenges CTTC faces. So, yep, so.....????
    Mar 19 04:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turnaround Strategy Being Implemented At Competitive Technologies [View article]
    This is taken from the AANLCP article that you cited, "While some private insurance companies have been willing to cover treatment...." - but you imply to know that every private insurer does not pay for Calmare treatment. So either the AANLCP article is wrong, or you are. But either way it doesn't really have relevance to my article - because I state that lack of significant private insurance reimbursement has been an impediment to Calmare sales. So again, your comment adds no value.

    I did see the 8k - it's in an 8k 2 weeks prior to earnings release - so.....??? Did you expect a break-out quarter prior to this 8k? I didn't.
    Mar 18 11:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turnaround Strategy Being Implemented At Competitive Technologies [View article]
    Again, I think I have already covered all of these topics. I do not see what value you are adding. My article explains that lack of current reimbursement and reliance on out-of-pocket payments from patients has been an issue in selling Calmare, that compelling clinical trial data from robust-designed studies will likely be necessary for eventual reimbursement and that eventual reimbursement (if it happens) will likely be years away.

    And relative to cost per treatment, a provider that uses Calmare specifically states he charges $150-$200 per treatment - which has been verified as roughly avg by mgmt.

    And that same AANLCP article you cite also states, "Several workers comp carriers and third-party administrators now cover ST (Calmare therapy). While some private insurance companies have been willing to cover treatment, other have not, and those patients presently have to pay out of pocket."
    So your statement that, "there is not a single insurer in the entire USA whose medical policy statement says anything other than the device is considered "experimental" and, hence, does not qualify for reimbursement" is clearly shot down according to this AANLCP article.
    Mar 18 10:21 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turnaround Strategy Being Implemented At Competitive Technologies [View article]
    I don't have proof that he has a PhD. I don't regularly verify the educations of developers of technologies that I cover and I don't see the relevance of your statement. Whether he does or does not (and I have no reason to believe that he does not), I don't think that has any relevance as to "proving" or "disproving" the efficacy of Calmare - I certainly do not ascribe any potential for Calmare to Marineo. Efficacy will be evaluated in clinical studies.
    Mar 14 09:25 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turnaround Strategy Being Implemented At Competitive Technologies [View article]
    Yes I have read the latest 10-Q and I am very familiar with their financial situation - which I mention is not good. And I also mention that their financial performance has been bad - so both those points I've already made.

    As far as Calmare being "approved" - it's not "approved" - it's 510(K) cleared. Will PMA approval necessarily translate into insurance reimbursement? - no, not necessarily. But it will necessitate compelling clinical evidence and reimbursement is much more likely to follow. It's obvious CMS and private payers weren't going to pay with the clinical data to-date - Mir's game plan certainly makes more sense than to try and sell in the current reimbursement environment.

    As far as the cost per treatment, it's not $500 - it's about $150 per treatment on average. Maybe some clinics are offering it for $500 but that's nowhere near the avg.

    As far as current reimbursement, Medicare does pay for Calmare treatment - granted it's spotty at best and nowhere near $150 - both of which I mention. As far as you knowing every private insurers policy towards Calmare - I doubt it. But again, I acknowledge that it's insignificant - making your point even less significant.

    As far as $8M in revenue in 2018, that's not unrealistic particularly with future compelling clinical data. As I note - a very small TENS manufacturer ramped revenue very quickly in a short period of time. That includes revenue growing from $2.6M to $8.0M in one year (then $11M, $19M, $24M, $34M...).

    Thanks for reading and all your points - although I think I already covered all of them before you made em!
    Mar 13 04:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Scrutiny Over Medical Device Safety Offers Opportunity For VeriTeQ [View article]
    One more reason there could be add'l interest in VTEQ's tech for breast implants.

    Also one more impetus for countries to implement national breast implant registries.
    Feb 24 11:31 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Put Corgenix On Your Radar [View article]
    Eric - yea just being a micro-cap keeps CONX either under the radar or off-limits of most investors. I think there has been growing interest in the company though. Just the increased participation on earnings calls is perhaps indicative of greater interest and if the financials continue to improve, there will undoubtedly be even more interest in the company.
    Feb 24 09:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
76 Comments
13 Likes