@8258857 You're ramping and it is embarrasinglyobvious.
@Tristan576, I would actually argue that revenue has already been accounted for, which is why we are now seeing a slide in the SP. A $150m market cap is not cheap. Have a look at other med tech companies, with substantial revenues etc, and what their market caps are.
I've recently provided a couple of postswhich tried not to take too much of a position, and allow holders to make theirown mind up.
https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/79120965/single
https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/79127481/single
The percetnage of companies that failCat III applications is REALLY SMALL. To have failed by reason of TWO of the 5key requirements is extremely concerning.
The fact that the Company hasn't identified what the failures were, and howthey propose to resolve them, is even more concerning. If they were small /simple fixes, the Company would say as much. The inference you can draw is thatthey are fundamental issues. I wouldn't be surprised if EIQ's 72% 'better'results analysis was laughed out of the room.
They've had this tech / AI / application since at LEAST late 2022. Stillno meaningful revenue. If it 'worked', this wouldn't be the case, and theywould have easily obtained the Cat III code.
When I say“worked” this doesn’t just mean that AI works, but that it has a meaningfulimpact.
What’sparticularly concerning is that the study underpinning all of EIQ’s marketingwas a retrospective analysis — which means it ran EchoSolv over historical echodata after patient outcomes were already known. It hasn’t been tested in a liveclinical setting to see if it improves real-world decision-making or outcomes.
Worse, thecompany has never disclosed how many of the 72% “extra” severe AS patients weresubsequently identified by human clinicians anyway. For all we know, a largeportion of them were already scheduled for monitoring or review and would havebeen picked up anyway. If that’s the case, EchoSolv adds no meaningful value.
There’s alsobeen no detail at all on false positives, nor on how many patients flagged bythe algorithm actually needed or received intervention. They claim “clinicalutility,” but utility without outcome change is just noise.
As for the CPTCategory III rejection: based on what AMA generally requires, it likely failedtwo of these five criteria:
- Unique and well-defined descriptor – If it’s not clearly distinguishable from what clinicians already do, it fails.
- Not for extraordinary/rare use – it must demonstrable clinical utility (do something useful), not just detect more stuff. That means changing care.
The rejectionwasn’t about formatting or documentation — if it were, EIQ would have said so.Instead, they were vague and evasive, which suggests they failed on fundamentalgrounds.
Combine thatwith the fact this tech has been around since 2022 with no commercial traction,no CPT code, and now a rejection that almost nobody else gets at Category IIIlevel — and you’ve got a product that’s not living up to its pitch.
AI is onlyvaluable when it leads to better outcomes, not just more alerts.
@8258857, more than happy for you to correct me on any of the above. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that you're not going to engage with anything fundamental or substantive, and just claim "fake news" / "down ramping" / baselessly talk about the stock being awesome....
(20min delay)