% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Boston Scientific Corporation Message Board

  • AzTravieso AzTravieso Jan 7, 2000 10:08 AM Flag

    Their reason is simple

    BSX started to rise before they had the position
    they wanted in BSX. They downgraded so they could load
    up. How else do you explain them holding a strong buy
    on a stock that fell almost 50% in value and then
    when the prospects start to look good they cut their
    rating to a hold. This is a definite attempt to
    manipulate the stock. Our only hope is that the other
    institutions keep right on buying.


    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Hey, Galileo had original thoughts too, how'd
      that work out. Yeah, I think I mentioned that ECCS
      is/should be a good one. Here's another in that vein,

      Network Attached Storage (NAS) is probably going to be
      the "next big thing" from a networking solutions
      standpoint. A NAS will actually improve both bandwidth and
      performance of high storage requirement companies of which
      there are zillions.

    • Why?... It's more fun in between real work to
      talk to people like you who actually have original
      BTW, I've been watching ECCS for a while,
      have some, am thinking of jumping in for some more. Do
      you know this co? I think that they are in your neck
      of the woods. Any thoughts?

    • Novoste Corporation has developed the
      Beta-Cath(TM) System to deliver 3 minutes of beta radiation
      just after application of stents. This has effect of
      freezing veins in place and reducing the need for
      subsequent surgery. Still in the FDA application process but
      being used in Europe. Sounds like this will reduce the
      need for BSX stents.

    • Regarding the Shomig gold vs. ss study...
      the absolute restenosis difference 11 points or is
      the relative difference 11 points?

      In either
      case BSX must prove that NIR Royal doesn't have a
      higher restenosis rate than NIR. Perception is
      everything and gold has a bad reputation. The bigger problem
      is, of course, that the NIR is a stiff and aging
      platform which cannot afford any further negative

    • You are correct, we agree (boy, there's that
      Westchester County public school education at work in
      creating that sentence.) Understand the retrospective
      problems but although they lack the "purity" of blinded,
      etc., studies, I believe that their inherent
      "impurities" make for a more believable and reproducable

      Hey! Why aren't you out saving lives instead of
      talking with me!! I'm just some goofy internet executive
      who gets paid to surf - well sort of.

    • We don't disagree. No question PTCRA allows you
      to approach what were previously less approachable
      with other technologies. The immediate results are
      pleasing. Long term, the vast amount of data suggests no
      significant impact on restenosis. That is why for the vast
      majority of operators, including myself this technology is
      a useful niche product used in approx 10% of cases.
      We definitely use this device differently than
      conceived by David Auth in his pig model and than when he
      initially explained it to me. We now know that slower
      speeds are better, routine balloon inflation following
      procedure is not to be avoided etc, etc. Agree the point re
      big hat/no cow re laser but think something might
      still happen with smart wire for total occlusion
      although prob not in SciMed hands now. If ASCENT, NIRVANA
      etc showed a significant restenosis difference you
      could bet the farm the cos. would be promoting that up
      the wazoo. Be very careful about any retrospective
      study. Still think a long play on Biodivisio stent makes

    • A couple of points in reverse order. From a
      practical standpoint, and that's really what I consider
      important, PTCRA allows intervention in lesions that are
      less safe and less effective with any other means.
      Lasers - PULEEEEEZ! Talk about your big hat/no cattle,
      that's lasers. I'm not convinced that anyone has
      conclusively proven Auth wrong on his implementation. I've
      seen some pretty good short and long term results in
      average hands. I also have to disagree that the concept
      of differential cutting does not lead to any
      improvement over POBA, Laser, etc. As to these restenosis
      rates, let's look at the numbers. For arguement sakes,
      lets say that SS Stent "A" has a restenosis rate, of
      some definition, of 31%. I do a trial which shows that
      my stent, "B", lowers restenosis by 10%. That means
      that your restenosis rate is effectively 28% vs. 31%.
      Is that really important given the wide ranging p
      values and mean calculation methods? I hardly think so.
      Give me a retrospective study of 5,000 patients where
      no contributor shows more than 50 pts with a
      restenosis rate of under 20% and I'll take notice. Untill
      then, restenosis of the year 2000 is the profile
      battles of the year 1990.

    • last Friday !!!
      But then they are still low at 25!

    • Unless we get a rebound really soon, MACD is
      going negative and the stock price will cross below the
      13-day moving average. Not good at all from a technical
      standpoint. The only bright spot is volume hasn't been that
      heavy since Friday's sell-off.

    • Where is the rally. I wanted to get out of this
      stock at 25 and be in something else. Where is this
      early in the year rally that was posted on this board.
      Methinks that 23-25 is the true price of this dog.

    • View More Messages
17.88+0.14(+0.79%)May 4 4:05 PMEDT