>>ISRG could prove be an exception, of course, but I would be more than a trifle concerned if I were long.<<
I'm more than a trifle disappointed in you, Dew. I proved that the sequential procedure number growth was 11.2% ... which is 53.1% annualized. Recall that first you said you were willing to bet that that number was negative. Then you said it must be anemic.
I showed it was neither.
Your response is to say that longs should be "more than a trifle concerned"??