Dear M. Jacobs,
With reference to your last post:
" Dear Lor, I will post the letter that was sent to me requesting inclusion of the FAST1 from Dr. Campbell. The last statement says " thank you for developing this wonderful device" it is included in vascular access methods in BTLS. Michael "
Michael, I guess I expected you to post your letter from John Campbell
************************** "on this forum"
based on your last post
************************** "to this forum".
However, thanks to an observant forum member I was directed to PYNG's website.
For those other forum members who prefer to read the famous "letter" here on this forum, I have posted it below followed by a few questions to you:
*****************************************************************
"" John E. Campbell, M.D., FACEP
Auburn, Alabama 36830
FAX
TO: Michael Jacobs
FROM: John Campbell M.D., President, BTLS
SUBJECT: Inclusion of FAST1 in 4th edition of Basic Trauma Life Support for Advanced EMS Providers
Number of Pages (including cover sheet) : 5
Notes: Mr Jacobs, BTLS International would like to include your product (FAST1) in our 4th ed. textbook under optional skills.
Would appreciate your review of the enclosed draft and any comments or illustrations that you have that may be of benefit
Thank you for developing a wonderful product. ""
********************************************************************
QUESTIONS:
1) Can you please advise this forum on what date was this undated and
unsigned fax received by PYNG ?
2) Although this looks more like a "form" letter possibly
sent out to many different developers of "new" medical
products rather then a rave review, it does show interest
in the FAST-1. Can you please advise this forum why Dr. Campbell
wishes to include PYNG in the "OPTIONAL Skills" section ?
3) Has PYNG reviewed and responded to the other 4 pages of Dr. Campbell's fax which you do not appear to have posted ?
4) Has the the final wording of PYNG's entry in BTLS been agreed upon
and if so would you please post same to this forum ?
5) Many of us mere shareholders have looked for plausible reasons why PYNG has not been able to announce any "mass production" orders todate. Most of us believe that PYNG's management is intelligent enough to have explored "mass production sub-contractors" long before now. We suspect that PYNG has been told by the US military that a price of US $ 100/ea. will not be cost effective enough to win "mass production" contracts and that indeed pricing in the range of [ US $45 - $55 ] may be at the "high" end of the spectrum which might result in such contracts. Further, many of us believe that you felt that you could convince the US military of the "obvious" superiority of the FAST-1 over other IO devices and therefore of the fact that such a device deserves preferential treatment as regards to price. We suspect that you have had a very frustrating time trying to get the US military to adopt your views and that PYNG has come to the realization that success is now only possible if you can reduce your costs well below the targets established in 1997 - 98. This would of course explain the delays in both "mass production contracts" from customers and the lack of any PYNG announcements of " PYNG approved sub-contractors for the manufacture of the FAST-1".
WOULD YOU BE KIND ENOUGH TO PROVIDE ANY COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE WHICH MIGHT HELP SHAREHOLDERS BETTER UNDERSTAND PYNG'S CURRENT SITUATION ?
Best regards,
LOR
|
