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: Prospector who wrote (837)	7/16/1998 1:31:00 AM
From: Mr. K	Respond to of 6039

The chart on this stock must look great to those chart guys! Here is another tid bit to keep us all educated! And I must say, this thread is a pleasure to follow! ********************************************************** 3) Digital technology may improve mammograms [07/15/98; Reuters News Service] NEW YORK, Jul 15 (Reuters) -- Digital technology may make it easier for radiologists to detect abnormalities in breast tissue on a mammogram, according to researchers speaking at a press conference here on Tuesday. And digitized mammograms could also improve access to breast cancer screening, because the images can be transmitted over a telephone wire, according to breast cancer experts who attended the conference, sponsored by the Danbury, Connecticut-based Trex Medical Corporation, a mammography equipment corporation. The full article can be found at: dailynews.yahoo.com

To: Prospector who wrote (837)	7/16/1998 1:38:00 AM
From: pressboxjr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6039

Hey Prospector, did you happen to notice that COII added another Market Maker today? I wonder why he is getting in?

To: Prospector who wrote (837)	7/16/1998 7:44:00 AM
From: Dr. Bob	Respond to of 6039

Prospector, Thanks for the links from George. The link to post #45 is the key one. It links to an article from a company called Inframetrics (potential competitor???) that, in part, gives some past history on a multicenter study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute comparing mammography, thermography, and palpation . This study is interpreted as promising for thermography, and may be the basis for Dr. Cockburn's claims that I have previously questioned the basis for. Several points are crucial to note: 1. The statement "One experiment...demonstrated...a number of instances where early detection was confirmed by mammography findings months and years later" is perhaps the basis for concluding that thermography is superior to mammography - and perhaps it is - but you can't prove it by this, so far. First, it does not say these lesions were missed by mammography initially, and then found months and years later; it could very well be that only thermography was performed initially, and mammography at a later time. Had mammography been done simultaneously, it may have found the lesions too. Second, the article clearly states that mammographic techniques have improved considerably since that time, so it is not clear until results of the current study are out ( and perhaps not even then, because this study is not designed to see if thermography can pick up lesions missed by mammography) whether thermography can indeed pick up lesions missed by mammography, as claimed by Dr. Cockburn. Now, before anyone jumps me, I'm not saying it can't, I'm just saying it isn't proven yet, as far as I know, so claims to that effect should be taken with a grain of salt! 2. The article cited clearly states "all three modalities presented disappointing results". Again, I recognize the technology has improved since then. All I'm saying is that the older studies are not as convincing to me as they apparently are to some others. Bob

To: Prospector who wrote (837)	7/16/1998 8:36:00 PM
From: chirodoc	Respond to of 6039

> Subject: CTI > Date: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 11:57 AM > > Just got off the phone with Doug @ CTI. We will be announcing a new PR > firm very shortly. They are out of the LA area and are very familiar > with the USC cancer trails. Also the national spokesperson will be named > shortly (we spoke about this earlier). It's round 3 for the SEC, and CTI > is getting impatient. They want a face to face meeting to find out what > else the SEC wants. > Thought you'd like this info. > > > John W. Nelson

To: Prospector who wrote (837)	7/26/1998 2:56:00 PM
From: Dr. Bob	Respond to of 6039

Prospector, This is a follow-up of a discussion we had a couple weeks ago, which now seems like forever! No-one may even care at this point, but I promised to follow-up on a post by George, relating to a very glowing report about CTI published by a Dr. Cockburn. I have already commented on one article on his list (my post #840), reaching much different conclusions than he did, and the other four articles were from obscure publications. I have finally gotten the second one; it is from 1934!!! Obviously has NO implications relative to COII, and in no way supports his conclusion that thermal imaging can pick up tumors prior to mammography. I am inclined to believe the rest of his statements are equally unsupportable until I see MUCH better evidence. This is crucial for a larger reason than COII. The claim that thermal imaging can detect tumors before mammography can is one we all hope is true, but as far as I can tell so far, is completely unsupported by data. It would be cruel and unfair for anyone with breast cancer or at high risk for it to carry that expectation, for the time being. I think it may have been possible for people reading this thread to get that impression, so I think it's important to lay it to rest. I hope George will do so on Raging Bull as well, or provide a suitable rebuttal. Bob