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: Jacques Chitte who wrote (2850)	7/25/1999 8:56:00 AM
From: Sylvester	Respond to of 4140

Skane, all. There's a lot of nonsence on Raging Bull and then there some great posts. This is from HUWITO (sp.?) whose posts are consistantly well informed. trevaille and All, Sanders called me last night and we had a long talk that I would like to summarize. I read the ODP questions kindly suppied by fillyboy and found nothing particularly strange about their nature or content and so will not comment on them. Sanders and I talked estensively about the confusion reported by fillyboy and other on this board. His response was that the ODP seemed to have decided to focus on the marginal out of set data. In other words, the ODP zeroed in on the marginal (thus, statistically insignificant) data in three area as I remember it. 1. The ODP focused on the first 46 patients treated without the benefit of careful drying of their eyes. SNRS pointed out that because of the radical difference in control of (induced) regression the data on those patients had become a moot point. The company also pointed out that they had, of course, continued to include the data on those 46 even though that inclusion influenced the rusults in a negative way. In any clinical trials you have data like these that because the treatment medthod (in this case, careful eye drying) has changed become invalid and any honest reviewer discounts them even though they are included for reasons of objectivity. Not the ODP, they continued to circle back on the data from the 46 as if the treatment had not been changed. As part of this point, let me add our Dominican experience with patients whose eyes we did not dry carefully. Please understand that this is a process that had never been done before. Thus, we did not ignore drying the eye we just did not understand the level to which the fluid (tears) on the eye would inhibit the treatment and allow regression to continue unchecked back to the original hyperopic state (never worse). So no patient was any worse than before this painless procedure but we (the patient and us) were losing the corrective effect of the treatment. Then we discovered that the fluid on the eye directly affected and diminished the laser application. (You discovery these things by trying everything you can think of.) We dried the eye to a Sahara like condition (for a very short time since the treatment only takes 2.8 seconds) and applied another 4 treatment points (discovered in the same way)and found that we had achevied stability of the laser induced target correction. 2. The ODP focused on a tiny group of data for 13 people out to 24 months. They even noted that because of the size of the sample it was statistically insignificant (to be statistically significant you need 33 people). Nonetheless, they continued to cite that tiny group even though the data were invalid for statistical reasons and only able to be viewed negatively by distortion. 3. Worse still, the ODP focused on 2 out of set individual which demonstrated only 50% efficacy. Firstly, you cannot use a sample of 2 for anything. Secondly, if you do use such a sample and one of the two is off target you fall to an "unacceptable" 50% rate and visa versa. This is silly (maybe malicious) but still confusing to those looking on and maddening to those expecting scientific discussion. In my discussion with Sanders it became clear that the cofussion exhibited on this board by those of you who were present at the meeting was based on repeated statements (by the ODP) concerning illegitimate extractions of minute sets of data from the SNRS report. Of course you are confused. They "injected" you repeatedly with minute doses of misleading segments of the data. A kind of reverse palcebo effect. I am reporting to you with Sanders' permission but recognize that any errors (I don't think there are any) in the above are mine not his. Please understand that in the past I have been very quiet on this board and have never offered extensive explanations of this treatment. I never ('til now) revealed my identity). Then, in the face of the nonsense perpetrated at the ODP meeting, I felt I had to at least present the basic truth about this outstanding technology. My interest really is the poor patients of the world. I have never done anything just for money (there is nothing inherently wrong in doing so) and perceive no personal material benefit from my relationship with SNRS or the other companies we work with. I hold shares in SNRS all of which I purchased and continue to hold because I believe along with Dr. Sanders, "There is no way on God's earth that this technology will not be approved". huwito

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (2850)	7/25/1999 9:15:00 AM
From: Sylvester	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4140

My response HUWITO, Your quote from Dr. Sanders were interesting and maybe even encouraging. I've lost all my money, but still hold enough shares to come out with enough to get by. There too many conflicts of information. If Dr. Sanders is admitting hte data presented was confusing, it also seems he anticipated refusal and bailed out. There seems to be two good reasons for the ODP rejection. One the suspicion of results based on the enormous amount of $$$ the presenters stood to earn. Second, patients treated with even slightly different procedures included in the same data set. Is this because there wasn't enough patients to separate the sets? If regression is the only issue, and the eyes treated at worst return to their pre-treated state, then (one answer please) how many poeple in the study experiences total regression after 18 months? How many had no regression going back to the beginning of the study? Ask Dr. Sanders if there is a statistically significant sample of patients with no regression at 6 months 12 months 18 months 24 months. Since he is a respected expert in regulatory, wouldn't he be making the case to the FDA for a reversal. If the procedure is as great as we all believed, then it would seem in less than 12 months, Sunrise would have enough patients treated with the latest methods to prove their case. That, plus the far greater safety and public acceptance should prevail. What's their next step. Are we going out of business next week?