Bad news for Dexcom

Share Vendors
1

Bad news for Dexcom in this article. Some of the accusations are very one sided but this does not bode well for the company. The way these things go, the attorneys and short seller sharks get together and continue to pile on for as long as they can to squeeze more money out of the shareholders. Bad news all around:

5 Likes
2

I was scolded by my local pharmacist for the amount of test strips I fill every month. I think articles like this justify the choice to finger stick for larger meals and corrections.

3 Likes
3

Thank You!!! A great article. This line says it perfectly, something I have noticed changed since the days when they seemed to actually care.

Quote “the arrogance of Dexcom is really what needed to be reset.”

2 Likes
4

This does not seem like a legitimate news article to me.

5

This is a law firm trying to get clients using scare tactics and the information in the text has false information and misinformation…beware. The FDA did not find any faulty product that was shipped at Dexcom during their inspection.

3 Likes
6

This a law firm trying to get clients and in full of misinformation about dexcom product. The FDA found NO faulty product shipped to customers during their inspection.

1 Like
7

What in the world?!?!

What did they say?

1 Like
8

I think it might actually be a hedge fund trying to short sell a stock. But, same difference. It’s deliberately misleading.

3 Likes
9

Ohhh it’s sort of a long rant of mine but the pharmacist would only fill half my strip prescription. My insurance covers 2 a day but will cover the 4 as long as i have a prior authorization done once a year.

Well she handed me one bottle and said the other one wasn’t covered. I told her it would be with a prior authorization. She basically refused to send the prior authorization to my provider and told me that I did not need to do that many finger sticks because I was on Dexcom and if I did something was really wrong. I guess shes’s thinking about the - No More Fingsticks phrase.

5 Likes
10

That’s all fine but it is always bad news once these fund managers team up with law firms to target a company. Dan Heller on Substack writes a good article about Dexcom’s troubles.

Back when I was a business guy my attorney would always say “ Any a**hole can sue you.” Corps like Dexcom can get seriously derailed by the plaintiff attorneys who will exploit any issues they can exaggerate.

4 Likes
11

I’ve never heard of Hunterbrook, they may or may not be a good reference. While the article is damning towards Dexcom, a look at the Hunterbrook website is a little concerning. Also, look at Hunterbrook - Wikipedia . Now I know some people don’t trust Wikipedia, but I find it a reasonably reliable information source, but form your own opinion. I don’t think a Hunterbrook or similar are good for anyone but themselves. They say they’re a mix of investigative reporting, investment, and litigation. That’s a mixture that needs separation because the potential, if not intent, for conflicts of interest is likely massive. Yes, Chinese firewalls can be formed, but they are notoriously ineffective; people in charge, corporate officers, have to talk, be aware of, and direct actions of the those actually doing the work. All that said, some of the Dexcom issues presented are real as exhibited by comments here on FUD and elsewhere by users like me. The question, like so many things today, is how much “Truth” (big T) is there in the article? Or, is it a little “Truth” mixed with a lot of innuendo because the company is trying to sway the market so their investment’s do well and their litigation “wins” for their clients. Seems more and more, we need to be skeptical of corporations in general…and ones like this in particular.

4 Likes
12

The way I look at this is the claims in Hunterbrooks article are what we senior citizens used to call propaganda, undoubtedly either false or exaggerated to try to influence “somebody”. That somebody is not us patients/users/customers, it is investors, class action plaintiff lawyers, regulators etc. as well as insiders at Dexcom. To the insiders this can be a shot across the bow in a worst case causing more talent to leave the company.

Hunterbrook is trying to hurt the company, plain and simple. Hurting Dexcom’s share price benefits the authors of the article. The fact that Dexcom finds themselves as a target of this type of corporate attack is bad news. Even though we can call it propaganda, it still forces Dexcom to defend themselves. I pessimistically think this is the start of a lengthy painful process for Dexcom and their shareholders.

4 Likes
13

If you’re interested, the New Yorker did an article about Hunterbrook

Spoiler Alert: it’s a cynical ploy by people of talent and privilege and greed.

There are many ways to critique the article, but I kind of love that the reporter slapped on a Stelo, got a cheap CVS fingerstick meter, found that on one occasion they got two different results and case-closed!

1 Like
14

Here’s the original TUD thread:

That lacks the sensationalism so I guess no one noticed. Nothing like a picture of a coffin to sell a story. I give the guys credit for having found the letter:

Maybe they read @Randy’s post. They certainly include the link to the warning letter from that post, though I guess it probably came from some other news outlet.

EDIT: they also paraphrased @bkh ‘s analysis of the sensor coating issue, picking up on the accuracy issues and, well, amplifying them.

News old news, “Hear all about it.” Diabetics dying, dead because they use CGMs.

My wife, who does the stock stuff, noticed the story last night (she does stock 24x7), sent me a link this morning. I’m pretty sure sensationalist articles like this will never help us. I’m pretty sure they will kill us, maybe;

CGMs have been banned by the administration because of dangers to diabetics using unproved and frequently unregulated technology.

2 Likes