Recent

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

STAAR Surgical Company Message Board

  • oldeyeguy oldeyeguy Sep 20, 1999 6:42 PM Flag

    hey you two cupcakes

    you and that fool humblesomethingorother wouldnt
    know a laser from the butt you sit on...of course
    alcon is only a two billion dollar ophthalmic(note the
    correct spelling)company...the worlds largest...and they
    certainly know the potential value of hydro technology...by
    the way fools,there are three companies developing
    this type of technology...now if only you two dumb
    jerks could figure the advantages out...take your damn
    staar gazing to the toilet where it belongs!!!

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You say that STAA "showed so much promise but has
      lost it." Would you explicate what you believe what
      elements constituted that unrequited promise in concrete
      terms. Are you referring to a supposed past ability of
      STAA to have dominated the IOL market?

      Also,
      you will understand that what you purvey as
      second-hand opinion by unnamed alleged experts, and which
      finds no concrete support elsewhere, is of questionable
      credibility to others. You may well be correct, but for the
      present you are merely a rumormonger. And, these rumors
      don't seem logical.

      What you are suggesting,
      with respect to the IOL, is that the management of
      STAA is knowingly running down a blind alley pouring
      more money into IOL R&D. In other words, they are
      salting the goldmine. To what end, in your view? Even
      Feingold, whom you praise, was presumably responsible for
      the continuing IOL research.

    • Let me fill out my previous post
      (1) South
      Africa ICL problems - this info came from a doc who is
      in close contact with a member of their trial group
      of surgeons in SA. Of course nothing is written down
      but that does not make the surgeon to surgeon
      interaction and discussion any less real!
      (2)My info on
      Feingold comes from a doc who is best buddies with a
      french surgeon who gives this info through his close
      association with Feingold. True they may file a countersuit
      if he steps over the line but as we all know big
      companies can duck & weave there way arround this for
      years. Not withstanding this Staar's demonstrated
      ineptitude in matters marketing will I believe give the
      other big guys time to play catchup.
      (3) Do you
      really expect that you will find a written report from a
      surgeon saying that he/she is not technically good enough
      to do this proceedure? My only comment is to suggest
      you get your head out of the sand and look arround.
      No one will say this but if you speak to surgeons
      who have actually "done it" they will tell you how
      hard it really is. Right now in this country only the
      top technically adept surgeons (selected by Staar)
      are part of the trial - obviously they want the best
      results - but when it is released for ervery Joe 6pack
      ophthalmologist to use you will get the same situation as you
      have is europe where there have been some good and
      some bad results. Wake up buddy - you cant read
      everything from a balance sheet. Obviously you havent talked
      to any surgeons about this, if you are long on Staar
      you may save your ass by doing so!!
      (4) Re
      Reversability - you obviously dont understand that the ICL is
      an operation that goes INTO the eye. This has the
      same risks as say normal cataract surgery. Surgeons
      dont like re operating on ANY patient. The Kera
      product goes into the surgace of the eye and can be
      easily reversed - it does not go into the eye.
      Once
      again - ask any surgeon which procedure they would
      prefer to reverse - ICL or Kera - that will give you
      your answer. The info on staar not pushing
      reversability to their own people came from someone who is
      close to their reglatory affairs people, its
      solid.
      Finally, your right - Im not short or long on staar, why -
      I bailed out at 14 1/3 a few weeks back. Even at 10
      1/5 which it is today I am not tempted. The vibes I
      am getting from the industry & medical community are
      all wrong.
      My "natering notes of negativity" are
      realistic appraisal of a company who showed so much promise
      but has lost it. They are intended to provide
      guidance to other small investors on the market so they
      dont loose their shirts by listening to parasites who
      hype stock to play the market longs against the shorts
      to rip everyone else off.
      Tell me repete - whats
      your position on Staar. Long Ill bet. Next time you
      may like to ask some Surgeons or the industry befory
      you
      stick out your neck so far. I wish you the
      best and my sympathy.

    • If optical correction via surgical implant is only for high myops, you'd better post this message on the Kera board, since their rings are aimed at other than high myops.

    • One of your points is well taken. To wit: time
      will tell. However, much of your so-called information
      is of doubtful accuracy. Your assertion of a high
      rate of cataract problems in South Africa would be
      significant, but for the fact that no one seems to be able to
      find written suppport for the assertion. Second, the
      continuing importance of Mr. Feingold is at least
      questionable as far as the ICL line is concerned, and whether
      he's got more to offer as to new products is an open
      question. In any case, Mr. Feingold may find himself at the
      wrong end of a counterclaim if he attempts to purvey
      STAA's trade secrets to others. I assume that Mr.
      Feingold's association with STAA would not have been
      discontinued if he were an invaluable asset, as you assume
      based upon, as you put it, rumor. Third, you assert
      that the procedure is delicate and cannot be conducted
      by just any good optical surgeon. Again, there is
      nothing written that I have been able to find supporting
      this assertion. Fourth, you affirm my thought that
      marketing problems may have plagued STAA's IOL market
      position. Finally, you take issue with the concept of
      reversibility and state that STAA is downplaying this feature.
      On the contrary, the stuff STAA puts out emphasizes
      reversibility, as does Kera. Of course, there are risks to every
      surgery, but that goes without saying. As I pointed out,
      there are also risks to the laser procedure.

      If
      you are not shorting STAA, then are your nattering
      notes of negativity merely intended to provide
      altruistic guidance to the poor benighted stockholders?

    • you make an interesting point about why staar
      don't go to many refractive trade meetings - the
      feeling that I get from the docs I have spoken to is that
      they percieve the ICL to be an alternative to high
      myopes also - but thats it. If this is the case when the
      product does hit the open market then staar will starve.
      Maybe they think so too, thats why they have gone into
      the laser business - to have an each way bet?.
      As
      one doc said to me the other day - If the icl is so
      great why is Huddleston, the CFO still wearing his
      thick glasses. Makes you wonder. Maybe its so he can
      see these fantastic financials that the market seems
      blind to!!

    • with facts inconsistant with yours is a short and
      should be ignored...am i right....you are very keen at
      picking and choosing YOUR facts...the brothergrim is only
      telling it like it is..these idiots that run this
      company(into the ground),like you, will continue to hype pure
      bulls--t....if you are not aware of it,staa is invited to very
      few healthcare conferances dedicated to refractive
      surgery versus the laser folks and kera...i wonder
      why....the icl is a wannabe targeted for a very thin market
      segment(high myopes and hyperopes)...the +12 and -12 type
      patient...not many of them and most will opt for a non surgical
      option versus a foreign body surgicaly implanted in
      their eye...i wonder how many of you hero folks will
      let someone surgicaly implant a lens in your eye???

    • this segment. I disagree with some of your criticism of management. My review of their financials shows things are getting significantly better.

    • Dear Repete,
      Thanks for your post. I don't
      think I am a downside specialist but if you have
      followed this company for the last 5 years and seen and
      heard from "in the know" doctors and industry experts
      you would have come to the same conclusion as I have.
      As far as facts go look at these.
      1) Staar
      invented the foldable IOL and had a huge technology leap
      on the big guys. The management fumbled the ball and
      they have gone from #1 to about #5 - the smallest
      player in the foldable market. Why? The management are
      accountants and engineers not marketers. You can have the
      best product in the world but if its
      marketed
      badly you get screwed. Thats what happened to Staar in
      the IOL field - margins asside.
      2) Technologically
      they have made some inroads with the ICL. Primarily
      this has come about by the involvement of Vladimir
      Feingold who developed this product range from the
      original concept. He just left staar and is sueing them
      for $1.7mill.
      Rumour has it that he is talking to
      one of the big 3 IOL co's to work with them. It will
      be interesting to see where he pops up - whoever
      gets him and his R&D expertise will win the
      day.
      3)You talk about the product being reversible. This is
      true it is
      but the last thing any Ophthalmologist
      wants is to go back into an eye to do another invasive
      proceedure with further risks of infection and cataract
      damage. Ask any surgeon if you think I'm BS on this one!
      I have been told by staar people that they are
      trying to downplay this aspect of the
      proceedure.
      4)The learing curve of this proceedure is steep. I'm
      told that in South Africa where they have had the
      product for some time they have had a lot of problems
      with cataracts because of this.
      Remember, it is
      currently in the hands of the best in the field - what will
      happen when every 6 pack surgeon can get his/her hands
      on it - Chaos!!
      When you add it all up - hype is
      what is driving this thing - long term my feeling is
      that this company is on a downhill spiral - time will
      tell.

    • It may be old news, I don't know, but I thought
      I'd pass it on just in case it adds something to the
      views that are out there:

      It opens, "The FDA
      Study for the Implantable Contact Lens is coming to a
      close. We would like to thank you for participating in
      the study. As the study winds down and data is
      collected the regulatory investigators have asked us to
      obtain some information from the study
      participants...."

      Maybe it's already generally well known that Phase III
      is wrapping up. If not, consider this an extra
      tidbit. I guess a report to the FDA is next? Given this
      letter, does it give anyone out there (with experience in
      such things) a better sense of the timing of an
      approval or (gasp) a denial?

      BTW, the 20/15 - 20/15
      (LR) I had seems to have settled to 20/20 20/15 (LR)
      in the 6 months since surgery. No glare. I get a
      halo in the very darkest of situations from isolated
      point sources of bright light (such as a bright LED on
      my caller ID box in the middle of the night).
      Overall, I'm very satisfied with the outcome. I hope it
      holds. Beats the heck out of 20/2000....

    • headed for $ 4........

    • View More Messages
 
STAA
5.54-0.08(-1.42%)Jun 24 4:00 PMEDT