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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Computerized Thermal Imaging CIO (formerly COII) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ripalip who wrote (5381)	8/14/2000 2:04:18 PM
From: who cares?	Respond to of 6039

Rip, first of all did you study tyPInG, unDR, TeH ESHteemed cuzzIN SHorTY, or DID U SPew sUM UV yorE, BS KnOT joosT Here, BUtT on YOre KEyBoord asSwell, cozzING thE ShEEft LoCK Key to OperatE iN aN INTermitTENT faSHUN? Now as for CTI's crap being the more accurate method, man it sounds like you better email that good news to the CEO since he sure didn't seem to know it when Bloomberg interviewed him, and the only advantage he could come up with to CTI's system wasn't as uncofortable. CMB

To: ripalip who wrote (5381)	8/14/2000 2:15:17 PM
From: ripalip	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6039

**** Looks like Mamo's in trouble now !***** again for Burns sake and others with the same handicap's this is from RB and written by a fella named Bill. He signed the bottom of his post too ! Bill is responding to a BASHER by the name of I am Grumpy ...I mean Gumby ..He's about as lame as Burns and some others on this board. This Gumby guy might even be one of Burns "multiple personality disorders". Enjoy rip By: sandb58511 $$$ Reply To: 50139 by sandb58511 $$$ Monday, 14 Aug 2000 at 1:59 PM EDT Post # of 50160 G I think we're on two different pages here--you want to continue to compare CTI to biopsies and I want to compare it to both biopsies and mammograms with an emphasis on mammographic comparison. I won't lie to you--assuming a biopsy is at the very least as effective as CTI image I go with the biopsy, but as I have pulled several books and a study I have found one consistent statistic that demonstrates my point: mammograms are at most 90% sensitive. All three books (I posted one of them earlier, you are just as capable as I am in pulling medical books from a medical library so if you want to do the DD your welcome to) cited the 10% or stated that the sensitivity was at most 90% (at least 10% false-negative). The study included a portion dedicated to a comprehensive review of many studies done on mammogram sensitivity, 13 in total. The high and low were thrown out and the average of the 11 left was 83% sensitivity. The range was 70-88%. You and I both know that biopsies are here to stay, but I'm afraid if CTI is shown to be 96% sensitive that we have a very viable alternative to mammography that would likely replace it at some future point. A difference of at least 6% sensitivity is an improvement of at least 60%, meaning 60% of missed malignancies are diagnosed by CTI. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the potential. End of story, my DD is done in these regards, now I just wait for clinical data and FDA approval of CTI. This is the risk and I'm willing to take it on a small investment. If you're not that's your perogative. OT Can I ask why you're so interested in showing us the doom of this stock? The only reason I can come up with is that you stand to gain financially from one or more of us fumbling. I'm not accusing you, I'm merely stating what the appearances are. Bill (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long)