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.
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?
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.
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.