PYNG Technologies Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : PYNG Technologies

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: m. jacobs who wrote (3388)	3/9/1999 1:54:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (2) of 8117

Dear Mr. Jacobs I am not sure where in my post you see any reference to the Uniform Military University being charged with making a purchasing decision. *The 30 or so medics that were chosen to test the 4 products were taken from only 2 classes at the Uniform Military University Medic class which is mostly Special Forces.* I stated the the medics used to by Walter Reed to test the 4 intraosseous infusion devices were taken from two classes of medics at the UMU. This is direct quote. Also I would like to address your statement about the WR report writer being out of the country now. I did not mention in my post when I spoke to him but for the record it was by phone on 2/16/99 and by email on 2/17/99. You are right he would not say very much but one of the few things he did say is that all four devices were "acceptable" and there was no clear winner. And when asked what other product was chosen and why he used as an example that the Navy Seals chose the SurFast. My post never stated that you could hold 20 of any of the products in your hand. I said you could hold 20 SurFast needles, maybe I should have said excluding the reusable knob handle. My point was that with SurFast you have more than one chance at infusion and this could be a factor in certain circumstances like the special environment that the Seals work in. I think the Seals passed on the FAST 1 because it is a one use device versus the 20 needles that could be held in your hand which are used in the SurFast, also the FAST 1 is more bulky and heavier than the SurFast. Here is a site were the SurFast can be seen: concourse.net He did state that he personally preferred the FAST 1 for regular emergency use. And the reason given is the the SurFast and Jamshidi needle protrude from the site and could be dislodged during treatment. He would not give any breakdown of how many of the 30 medics chose the FAST 1 or any of the other 4 devices. He stated that the FAST 1 was the most secure, easiest to see and had the lowest profile of all the devices. But it was the bulkiest and slowest (speed in his opinion would not be a deciding factor as all products could be used in an acceptable length of time). The BIG was the fastest. I guess the fact that 70% of all battlefield injuries are peripheral was not a big enough factor to sway all the Special Forces medics that tested the 4 products. I agree that the sternum is a better site as I have stated several times on this forum. And for the Navy Corpsmen (that support the Navy and Marines), para-rescue that support the Air Force and regular army medics the above issue my be the deciding factor. As I stated the Seals appear to have very specific requirements. I did not do the testing and all I can do is report the facts provided by someone that did. I am confused why you seem to attack my posts. I am generally positive in my outlook and would never post to a public forum information that I did not hear first hand without saying it was opinion i.e. "I think" And generally I would not post information that I have gleaned from someone else to a public forum. My post was in response to a previous post and was merely to set the record straight.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next