To: tuck who wrote (148 ) 5/22/2002 8:53:58 PM From: scott_jiminez Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 201 Amazing amount of hype for a single journal article... Let's see, how many red-flags-of-hype can I spot in a single sentence: the first... 1. 'the innovator' 2. 'and global leader' 3. 'the publication of a significant Mayo Clinic Study' 4. 'demonstrating the importance of the company's...' 5. 'the peer-reviewed journal' I recall with clarity the warning from a biochem. professor in grad. school that whenever someone use the phrase 'peer-reviewed journal'...run like hell. I see no evidence in this press release that contradicts that insight. I also see no mention either that Hypertension Diagnostics also has a non-invasive, FDA-approved device for measuring cardiovascular status that is more accurate and more reproducible than impedance cardiography. It takes less time (30 seconds) and is less costly as well. The fact that CDIC only referred to 'traditional management by high blood pressure specialist physicians' as their reference group, and not HDII's CVProfilor device, which is their TRUE competition, speaks volumes about CDIC. In short, CDIC doesn't want to cite HDII because they know that even a brief reference to their main competitor would be an acknowledgement of direct competition. HDII's waveform analysis is, at a minimum, an approach to cardiovascular screening that provides an equal degree of assessment as CDIC. In fact, substituting CDIC's 'BioZ' with HDII's 'CVProfilor' in the article would produce an even greater wealth of data than the over-hyped claims of CDIC's PR dept. And Hypertension Diagnostics, who had ELEVEN abstracts involving its device at a recent hypertension meeting, is not a company SO insecure that it feels the need to issue a separate press release every time an article gets published in a 'peer-reviewed' journal.