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.

Biotech / Medical : Chromatics Color Sciences International. Inc; CCSI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JanyBlueEyes who wrote (2186)	5/16/1998 4:17:00 PM
From: Bradpalm1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5736

This is getting too easy. FRANKIE13 (for the sake of our nation's health I pray that you're an LPN and not a RN) inadvertently but brilliantly articulates the deep thinking going on in the minds of CCSI fans everywhere. In medicine (am I speaking slowly enough for you?), there happens to be an important distinction between a colorimetric assay, a clinical sign and a clinical diagnosis. Unfortunately, these apparently trivial concepts somehow become fused together when our heroes try to defend the capabilities and attributes of the Colormate System. Ignorance, however, is no defense for stupidity. Cyanosis, to use your example, is a clinical sign or manifestation --- NOT a disease (no one dies from cyanosis, just the disease that causes it). More precisely, cyanosis is not a "chromogenic disease" but simply a qualitative observation. If CCSI wants to start quantifying it, however, they should knock themselves out. I'll stick with pulse oximetry (a photoelectric measurement of oxygen saturation, Frankie), and blood gas measurements. I might further add that it was CCSI who proposed diagnosing or monitoring such conditions as hepatitis, tuberculosis of "forms of malignancy" (whatever this means) with their technology, not some heinous short. Perhaps you guys should beam back to your mother ship for a little chat with Captain Darby. Bradpalm1

To: JanyBlueEyes who wrote (2186)	5/16/1998 10:28:00 PM
From: JanyBlueEyes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5736

Subject: Re: thoughts on post from SI Date: Sat, May 16, 1998 12:45 PM From: DocDaniel2 Frankie, I had exactly the same reaction, and have also not taken the time to register on SI as I usually have nothing to add, and like most learned people, stay quiet until I do. This clown is implying he is a physician, but 10:1 odds he is not. Most (but not all) physicians are at least grounded in logic. That has usually been our strong suit as well as our weakness. Slow to try new treatments until proven with a 95% confidence interval to be better than the alternative, we are cautious until we see the proof. This is the only thing that keeps Medicine trustworthy. Like Voltaire said: No man is more worthy of esteem than a physician who exercises his art with caution and gives equal attention to the rich and to the poor. This mindset is good and proper, but we also are supposed to be experts at puzzle solving, data assimilation, and science. We learn each day (practice), and we share and record what we learn. That is why medical terminology is critical. It is based on greek and latin for the most part, and most of us have studied both. We all want to keep it pure, so you can read something about a subject unfamiliar to your specialty and learn as you read, without leapfrogging to an incorrect supposition based on an incorrect definition. Case in point:..."chromogenic"...for those who care, follow closely: We already have the word chromogenic in the medical dictionaries. It means "producing a pigment or coloring matter". We already have the word 'disease". It means: "any deviation..normal structure or function of any part, organ, or system of the body....". What we don't have is the common occurence of these two words together., so we have to stop when we read (and that bugs us) and think. On first impression, the phrase may seem to imply "a disease caused by color". (Chromo- for color, 'genic' from the beginning or origin (as in Genesis). ). We all know this is not the case. We are simply stating a useful observation that "chromo-(color)-genic-(productive of) dis-(away from)-ease-(comfort)-s-(plural)" are by definition diseases associated with the production of color., and that the color can sometimes be measured to help diagnose and treat diseases. New technology in color measurement will continue to use this word whenever discussing the diseases in that list. There already are more specific terms that we could use to discuss 'bilirubinic' diseases, 'cyanotic' disease (cyanosis), 'carotenic' disease (carotenemia and carotenosis, as well as carotenodermia), and we already have a medical instrument called a 'hemochromometer' that measures color of blood to determine the proportion of hemoglobin, and an oximeter which measures oxygen concentration by means of color, already called "colorimeter", defined in Dorland's as an instrument for measuring color differences, especially one for measuring the color of blood in order to determine the proportion of hemoglobin...called also 'chromometer'. We already talk about cerebrospinal fluid as xanthochromic when it appears yellow, implying something useful that helps us change our treatment. Why in the hell can't you see another word fitting in here.......ARE YOU .....XANTHOCYANOPTIC?......FOR THE ILLITERATE::::already means "able to discern yellow and blue tints only, but not red and green......F***** COLORBLIND.........OR ARE YOU -> PINK??????