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 : BEAM, BOL, KERA, LASE, LCAV, LVCI, LZRC, VISX, SNRS, STAA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gcrispin who wrote (52)	4/16/1999 1:47:00 AM
From: Joe	Respond to of 253

gcrispin To me, the STAA ICL is no comparison to KERA Intacts. KERA is invasive, but no more so than LASIK. Both only involve the stroma (the inside of the eye's cornea). The ICL is like an intraocular lens used for cataract surgery. It is inserted inside the anterior chamber of the eye, behind the iris but in front of the eye's crystalline lens. This is much more invasive than the KERA ring. On the other hand, I heard from someone that works at one of the clinical sites evaluating the ICL's. The do LASIK on one eye and ICL's on the other. They said that 100% of the patients say they prefer the ICL. This person did not say how many patients they have treated. (I would want to know how many have been treated before making much of that statement.) I had invested in KERA and have sold after the two news releases this week (LCAV & hyperopia). I have heard they will have greatly improved numbers based on Canadian sales. (BTW, I think they can advertise reversibility in Canada, but FDA disallowed it in the U.S.) The problem with STAA looks like it is very thinly traded. Joe