Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bernard Elbaum who wrote (4063)	6/29/1999 11:43:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

Bernard very thought provoking post. I am going to study your comments carefully. They certainly provide some "meat to consider". I especially like the way you started broad with the 4.8MM IVs established, which I had seen in the past and immediately injected some realism that only 15% or so of these situations are time critical and would be prime candidates for the FAST 1. Eventually, I think the number 720,000 as a potential civilian market is as good a number as any to start with. For Pyng to get a significant share of this market say 50%. I would think that state approval for a broad protocol that includes language that allows the FAST 1 to be used as a "first line access device" in at least 25-30 states would be necessary. This is my biggest concern, states appear to move very slowly in approving EMS protocols in general and the steps to go from a protocol that allows the use of the device "when an IV can not be established in a reasonable time" to one that allows first line use in time critical instances are unclear. Will states approve the more open protocol initially? I do not have the expertise to say, but the conversations I have had with EMS personnel do not lead me to this conclusion. So my concern is that the more open protocol may take years not months to attain in enough of the larger states for the FAST 1 to get a significant share of the time critical market potential. Obviously it will take some one that has experience with "state wide protocol approval" to answer these questions. I certainly hope that my concerns are unfounded. I really think that discussion of these types of questions are the real value of this thread.