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.

Biotech / Medical : SNRS- Sunrise Technologies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: majormember who wrote (2832)	7/24/1999 12:42:00 PM
From: majormember	Respond to of 4140

Cont.......... As I have PM many of you, I think the BEST solution is if Russ & Co. hire an an outside expert to analyze the "Entire" situation going into approval, including the political fallout from the WSJ article (was it mere coincidance the WSJ published the article the day before review). This expert should: 1. Find out specifically what went wrong (very hard if it is political). 2. Make a detailed report to Russ what the problem(s) are. 3. Russ is then able to act on what the real problem is. The companies that have blowups employ people to engage in damage control. Many times they temporarily have more power then the CEO. Take two major disasters: 1. Exxon Valdez- there were no outside experts to advise, company tried to run show itself and did a terrible job. 2. McNeil- Tylenol poisen. Company had terrific experts who did a great job at damage control, with virtually no damage to the product. Tylenol came back as the #1 leader. Of course this matter is different. What remains the same though is how close we and Russ are to the company, and how wronged we feel. That will make it impossible and stupid, imho, if Russ tries to take charge without knowing the "true" reasons for rejection. If he or any of the "Brain Trust" at SNRS knew, we wouldn't have been rejected. So, Joe, Barry, Bill...whoever speaks to Russ, I highly recommend you have him hire an impartial outside expert who will be able to deliniate what really happened here, and outline a strategy to come back with. Waiting another six-twelve months may be difficult, but it is the only way to go, imo. Right now what happens will determine the future for the co. If done the right way, we can get back on track, and ultimately get approved. If so, then this could be the greatest of all buying opportunities. If they don't handle it right this time, it is the end of Sunrise, most likely. Skane

To: majormember who wrote (2832)	7/24/1999 12:46:00 PM
From: dave brown	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4140

One thing I don't understand is that the CLINICAL INVESTIGATORS owning the stock is bad AND upper management of the company not owning the stock is bad. Why isn't it a vote of confidence that the people seeing the results first hand think enough of the process to take ownership in it. This hole question of the eye correction only lasting 18 months, why wouldn't that be OK as long as it is disclosed to the patient? If the procedure is safe and only takes seconds to do, why not have a reasonable fee and have patients come in every 18 months for a check up and possibly have the procedure redone. Nothing lasts forever. Let SNRS put their SAFE product out in the marketplace and let society decide if clearer vision for 18 months at a time is of any value to them. The FDA just gave SNRS the OK to work on both eyes at the same time. What's the message, "your process is safe enough to risk the total vision of a patient, which is OK because any screw up will wear off in about a year and a half."