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: AriKirA who wrote (3375)	3/6/1999 11:15:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 8117

On the subject of the military stating that none of the four products tested were the clear winner, I have to back LOR. This is a fact that was related to me by the person who is responsible for writing the Walter Reed report. But this person also stated that the FAST 1 was their personal choice for normal EMS use and that they were surprised that there was no clear winner. The 30 or so medics that were chosen to test the 4 products were taken from only 2 classes at the Uniform Military University Medic class which is mostly Special Forces. The Navy Seals medics are the only ones that he stated definitely did not pick the FAST 1 they preferred the SurFast. I think the Seals passed on the FAST 1 because it is a one use device versus the 20 needles that could be held in your hand which are used in the SurFast, also the FAST 1 is more bulky and heavier than the SurFast. The Seals have some pretty unique requirements in my opinion which do not extend to the regular army medics and Navy Corpmen which service the Marines, Navy and Air Force which are much larger branches of the Special Operations Forces. JMHO.