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: m. jacobs who wrote (3388)	3/9/1999 11:40:00 AM
From: Mark S. Schroeder	Respond to of 8117

Thanks for the clarification Michael and update.

To: m. jacobs who wrote (3388)	3/9/1999 12:52:00 PM
From: LOR	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8117

Michael, You suggesting that Jack Rayfield does not get things "strait" ...I assume you mean straight...is very much like the kettle calling the pot black. Do you deny that Maj. Mark Calkins at WR was directly involved in the WR tests? If not, then let me assure you that he has advised me [ and others ]personally "by phone" that NONE of the four devices tested [ which includes the FAST-1 ] was selected by a majority of medics involved in the WR testing of intraosseous devices as the "device of choice". If you have any evidence to the contrary [ and I know you DON'T ] then I suggest you make it available to whatever PYNG "faithful" there are remaining on this forum. Over and above that I suggest you recognize that Jack Rayfield has done much more then just about anyone else [including yourself ] to defend PYNG and explain why it is taking your company so much longer then forecasted by PYNG to become a "mass production" company. Many of us believe you have championed a great product and deserve a lot of credit for getting it to where it is .... however many of us also feel that investor confidence would be significantly higher today if there was more "realism" and a tad less "imagination" in PYNG's past so called information releases. It is not a good sign to see a CEO taking aim at one of his own supporters....just a word to the wise, Best regards, LOR

To: m. jacobs who wrote (3388)	3/9/1999 1:54:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8117

Dear Mr. Jacobs I am not sure where in my post you see any reference to the Uniform Military University being charged with making a purchasing decision. *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.* I stated the the medics used to by Walter Reed to test the 4 intraosseous infusion devices were taken from two classes of medics at the UMU. This is direct quote. Also I would like to address your statement about the WR report writer being out of the country now. I did not mention in my post when I spoke to him but for the record it was by phone on 2/16/99 and by email on 2/17/99. You are right he would not say very much but one of the few things he did say is that all four devices were "acceptable" and there was no clear winner. And when asked what other product was chosen and why he used as an example that the Navy Seals chose the SurFast. My post never stated that you could hold 20 of any of the products in your hand. I said you could hold 20 SurFast needles, maybe I should have said excluding the reusable knob handle. My point was that with SurFast you have more than one chance at infusion and this could be a factor in certain circumstances like the special environment that the Seals work in. 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. Here is a site were the SurFast can be seen: concourse.net He did state that he personally preferred the FAST 1 for regular emergency use. And the reason given is the the SurFast and Jamshidi needle protrude from the site and could be dislodged during treatment. He would not give any breakdown of how many of the 30 medics chose the FAST 1 or any of the other 4 devices. He stated that the FAST 1 was the most secure, easiest to see and had the lowest profile of all the devices. But it was the bulkiest and slowest (speed in his opinion would not be a deciding factor as all products could be used in an acceptable length of time). The BIG was the fastest. I guess the fact that 70% of all battlefield injuries are peripheral was not a big enough factor to sway all the Special Forces medics that tested the 4 products. I agree that the sternum is a better site as I have stated several times on this forum. And for the Navy Corpsmen (that support the Navy and Marines), para-rescue that support the Air Force and regular army medics the above issue my be the deciding factor. As I stated the Seals appear to have very specific requirements. I did not do the testing and all I can do is report the facts provided by someone that did. I am confused why you seem to attack my posts. I am generally positive in my outlook and would never post to a public forum information that I did not hear first hand without saying it was opinion i.e. "I think" And generally I would not post information that I have gleaned from someone else to a public forum. My post was in response to a previous post and was merely to set the record straight.