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: LOR who wrote (4150)	7/13/1999 11:16:00 AM
From: Jack Rayfield	Respond to of 8117

LOR That depends on what your definition of "Producer" and "in" is. Pyng has produced the FAST 1 as a protype. When available it maybe be "in" one of the fastest growing segments of the global healthcare market. As to the competitors the BIG is being sold along with the SureFast and Jamshidi Needle now. Pyng apparently believes that these devices are inferior because of the security of placement, site of infusion, safety issues and easy of use. But the fact remains they are being sold and are saving lives, though who know in what numbers. The Surefast is used as far as I know for pediatric emergencies now and the Jamishidi Needle is primarily used for bone aspiration. I do not consider them as very big competitors. The BIG seems to be the only direct competitor for emergency IO infusion but the arm, leg, wrist and ankle do not produce equivalent flowrates to the sterum. But on the other hand slow flowrates are better to a dying person than no access. In hindsight, maybe it would have been better for Pyng to have gotten approval for the original device and gone to market with it (looked like a bottle cap with a needle in it). And used the time from 1997 till now to work on the current version. It was ready back in late 1996 and early 1997 and had to be much simplier to produce. It used the sternum so the flowrate and access time were probably simlar to the current FAST 1. Although it did not have depth control or the security and safety of the current system so the FDA may not have approved it. Just a thought.