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!!!
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?
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
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!!
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.
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
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
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
stick out your neck so far. I wish you the
best and my sympathy.
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.
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?.
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
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???
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.
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
badly you get screwed. Thats what happened to Staar in
the IOL field - margins asside.
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
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
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
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
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
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....