Author Topic: MDXG - MiMedx Group  (Read 8452 times)


  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
Re: MDXG - MiMedx Group
« Reply #40 on: May 30, 2019, 11:28:05 AM »

Fraud going to zero, right?

With comments like this, might be best forum hygiene to state whether you have a position, and what variety.  My 2 cents (no position).
Ben Hacker
Beaverton, Oregon - USA


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 595
Re: MDXG - MiMedx Group
« Reply #41 on: May 30, 2019, 04:16:28 PM »

Fraud going to zero, right?

With comments like this, might be best forum hygiene to state whether you have a position, and what variety.  My 2 cents (no position).

Just to defend greg.  He did say he was long and then sold out.  Also in the context of this thread both longs and shorts pretty much admitted this was either a multibagger or a zero, so his comment was not all that controversial.   


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1831
Re: MDXG - MiMedx Group
« Reply #42 on: November 10, 2019, 08:06:10 AM »
Follow-up and some kind of reflection on the state of healthcare in the US.

-I think the US in this space does things that are great but also that are not so great.
-This analysis is based on an individual appreciation of the fundamentals and (like in the VMD thread where it appears that I was wrong or early which can sometimes be equivalent) being right on the process does not preclude the possibility to make a lot of money as MDMX equity has done really well since the introduction of the topic.

The emphasis here is not about the accounting and reporting red flags, it's about the fundamental value of the products. There has been considerable delay with various disclosures and some entities are ready to finance the rough patch so here are some relevant numbers for this post.

                                                                                2014          2015          2016
Total sales                                                                 118.2         187.3         245.0
-sales from wound care                                                93.6         141.1         184.0
-sales from 'surgical' products and to MD offices             24.6          46.2           61.0
(injectable stuff)

For the wound care, the growth is impressive but the placental, amniotic and umbilical cord products' effectiveness is based on poor and inconclusive evidence and many trials are sponsored and targeted "to support coverage and reimbursement".
For the injectable stuff, the same conclusion applies and the evidence is even weaker.
This has been discussed even in mainstream investing publications:

I recently (yesterday) came across a report which was quite certainly not sponsored and takes a look, from the research angle, at how incentives could interact with the true efficacy of the product. The study covered the 'alternative' options used by relevant MDs in South Florida when dealing with a significant part of the addressable market (knee pain). The medical clinic revenue per patient if treated with a standard cortisone shot = $188.54. The medical clinic revenue per patient if treated with stem cell therapy-type of injection = $1200 to $6000, with a mean of $3100 and often a requirement for cash-only payments. One has to deduct the cost of procurement of the product which is different in both cases. In Canada, moderate efforts could obtain the products for about 5-10 bucks and, given the typical cost differential for the exact same items, in the US, I assume the cost could be in the $20 to 30 USD range. Because of the opaque nature of the 'alternative' market, it is hard to obtain and assess the impact of the cost of the stem cell therapy product. Very reasonable assumptions however suggest that the clinic/MD can multiply the revenue and exponentially multiply the bottom line by using a product backed with questionable evidence at best. What would you do and what does it mean for the value of the stem cell products?

The US is a great place for innovation (and also a great place for excesses). In the nineteenth century, the US was the place where innovation and entrepreneurs of various sorts allowed to be at the forefront for the development of the petroleum industry as we know it today. This was a revolution and started really when kerosene was developed to replace whale oil and lard as the primary source of light. But the 'product' initially was destined for a completely different market and the FDA did not exist but one has to wonder if the FDA really exists today. The adventurous Samuel Kier played a role and made a lot of money with the transformation but his adventure started by using the salt mine contaminant (I guess like the discarded placentas story of today) and selling it as petroleum syrup famed to cure just about anything, including "rheumatick" complaints. The evidence used by Mr. Kier was formed when he discovered that the product was prescribed for his wife who suffered from tuberculosis. The story does not say if the wife healed but the investor saw a profit opportunity. Mr. Kier then did not have to worry about the SEC or the FDA and used the following publicity:

"The healthful balm, from nature’s secret spring,
The bloom of health and life to man will bring;
As from her depths the magic fluid flows,
To calm our sufferings and assuage our woes."

All that to say that stem cell therapy offers great promises which are likely to come from a direction that remains, to this day, at the margin of acceptable and known evidence. What disturbs me tough is that the margin of clinics in South Florida offering and recommending the 'alternative' stem cell therapy was 24.5% and 58% of those clinics were not transparent on price. When reading about the early development of the oil industry and the role that Mr. Kier played in it, I learned a new expression which has been described as a euphemism for a specific kind or marketing.