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: Grant MacMillan who wrote (3789)	5/20/1999 5:16:00 PM
From: David L. Johnson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

No. Vancouver has our only Canadian sites. We focussed on the states. I think our list of early adopter sites has been published here or on our web site.

To: Grant MacMillan who wrote (3789)	5/20/1999 10:08:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

Grant- The PR excerpts of the WR report are consistent with the conversation I had with the report writer in Nov 1998. He said that the security of the device would be very important in a battlefield environment as any needle that protruded (as all the other products tested do) would pose a significant risk in a battlefield situation. He went on to say that the FAST 1 would be his choice for non- battlefield emergency use. Which leads me to believe that his criteria for evaluation in this environment would be similar to civilian EMT users. Frankly I am relieved that the co #1 product in the study was the Jamshidi Needle as it is currently used only in the hospital environment for bone aspiration. There was nothing I saw in the PR or in my conversation with the Major that would lead me to believe that the study's test results would lead Baxter to actively pursue this market. The fact it is more compact and lighter than the FAST 1 should be more that offset by the fact that it uses an site (leg/arm) that is inferior to the sternum because of the distance from the heart and marrow composition of the bones (primarily yellow in adults arm/leg) versus red (sternum). Also I have read somewhere maybe on the Pyng site that 70% of all battlefield casualties involve extremity damage (arm/leg). If the wound is in the chest the prognosis is obviously pretty gloomy anyway. The Major did say that at least one medic group (Navy Seals) chose the SurFast (Cook) because it was light and compact due to the small size of their medic kit space. But since it finished dead last their parameters most not be shared by the other branches. I am surprised that the Major did not even mention that any medic group chose the Jamshidi needle. And I asked specifically. Hopefully he did not think that the Jamshidi Needle would seriously be considered as the overall alternative because of the protrusion issue. I do not think the JN is a serious competitor although it is cheaper. The fact that "Only the F.A.S.T.1 had good flow rate in all cases. Only the F.A.S.T.1 infusion site was rated very secure in all cases." I think is hugely positive. These are two of the three most important criteria for civilian EMTs in my opinion. Speed is the first and I agree that it is unfortunate that the study did not include the securing and dressing time for the other devices. I think the built in landmarking included in the FAST 1 system will carry alot more weight than the study seems to indicate. Would you want to have the responsibility of determining how depth to chose for inserting the JN, BIG or SurFast under fire or in the dark? JMHO. Thanks again Ed for your Tour notes. Jack