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: Profiteer who wrote (1007)	7/24/1998 1:37:00 AM
From: Prospector	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6039

What cha doin up so late Profiteer... Your gonna pass yerself gettin up in the mornin.. Prospector

To: Profiteer who wrote (1007)	7/24/1998 1:45:00 AM
From: chirodoc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6039

don't worry to much about the wolf i know that he is very busy at work--up to his eyeballs he is probably just tryin' to make more money to invest in cti curtis

To: Profiteer who wrote (1007)	7/24/1998 7:07:00 AM
From: Dr. Bob	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6039

Profiteer, " I might be incorrect, but I was under the impression that CTI's technology was being used on volunteers with suspicious mammograms. This would determine it's accuracy to identify malignant from non-malignant tumors.. prior to the volunteer's scheduled biopsy. If clinical trial turn out as positive as we expect.. then in the future CTI's equipment could be used as a "screening device" in place of mammograms. Would that be correct? " That's correct, and if you remember Barbara's posts from the Nightingales as an example, that's certainly where many women see the greatest promise for this technology - the ability to avoid mammography entirely, with a test that is more accurate, as well as more likely to be used by women who worry about the discomfort and radiation exposure of mammography. In my mind, it is where the real financial payoff comes as well - if thermography is in fact better than mammography, all the mammogram equipment will eventually be replaced by thermography equipment, with perhaps even a bigger market if women utilize it more readily. The applicability to other indications will make this transition even easier for hospitals and clinics to justify on a cost-effectiveness basis. But that's NOT where the scientific evidence is at present, and the current multicenter trial will not get us there - it isn't designed to. These trials, if successful, only allow women who have had mammograms which are suspicious to possibly avoid the need for biopsy if the thermogram is reassuring. It will still be recommended for women to have mammograms on a regular basis, and perhaps there will even be an increased push for mammography, since women can be told that we now have a second technique to use so that they're less likely to need a biopsy, thus reducing the fear factor a bit that interferes with a lot of women getting the mammograms they need. If the trials work out positively, and thermography is then introduced into practice as I outlined above, at some point in the future (2001, as a wild guess), there will be enough confidence in the procedure that there will be great interest in the idea that perhaps mammography could be bypassed entirely in favor of thermography. A second multicenter trial could then be designed and executed, which might confirm the validity of this concept, and if so, we would then be to the point you proposed, but that would be 2003 at the earliest. I don't see that time frame as a problem. This company (no company on earth!) could gear up to the point of making enough thermography equipment to replace all the mammography equipment plus supply the new demand by the year 2000, and even if they could, it isn't going to get into everyone's budgets by then. By 2003, however, this is practical, although even that would require the company to double revenues every year for the next 5 years, as best as I can guess, and even then, allows for some competition picking up some of the sales. Now that part is pure speculation; running those numbers currently requires just too many assumptions. But hopefully you see my point - this company doesn't need to replace mammography in the next year or two to become a wonderful success story. Who wouldn't want to get in on a company whose product is finally coming to market after many years of research, with the potential to double sales every year for the next 5 years at least? There is considerable risk here; this is not a sure thing, but it is exactly that opportunity which I have outlined that makes this company so attractive. This stock was a steal at $.54, where I got in, a fair buy at $1.00, where many more of you joined, and probably won't be available for less than $1.50 after fully reporting status is achieved, and the company can make its story better understoood - all IMO. On the other hand, once the company's books are open again and the hype dies down, there is little chance it will go over $10 in the next year or two. The fundamentals, as best I understand them (and I would like to understand them much better, but will have to wait like everyone else!) just won't support the predictions of a price of $20 or $30. Anyway, that's how I understand the situation at present, mixed in with a couple of my best guesses. Bob