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 : IMDS nasdaq bulletin board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Labrador who wrote (1624)	8/26/1998 2:42:00 PM
From: UDanWright	Respond to of 4122

We need TMex..................

To: Labrador who wrote (1624)	8/26/1998 6:12:00 PM
From: Andrew Abraham	Respond to of 4122

bob, Hmmm. Instead, how about this news article from the November 21, 1990 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (p.1739-1740)? Headline: "False Screening Claims Undermine Breast Cancer Detection Efforts" The article describes how Wisconsin and Federal authorities responded to the bogus claims that were made for "Lintro-Scan," the first so-called painless, x-rayless mammography device that Richard and Linda Grables developed and marketed. Here's the lead: "Touted by claims 'tantamount to those of a rainmaker,' an experimental breast scanning technique, cropping up around the country as a substitute for x-ray mammography, may undermine legitimate breast cancer screening programs, health officials fear. "The techniques is called lightscanning, transillumination, or diaphanography. It involves shining visible and infrared light through the breast to visualize internal tissues. While it may be useful in diagnosing some already-detected tumors, experts agree it does not reliably spot asymptomatic tumors, disqualifying it as a screening device." [For which the Grables were hyping it]. "But in spite of federal and state health officials' efforts to stop its promotion as an x-ray mammographny substitute, some screening clinics in Wisconsin, Texas, and Florida continue to advertise it as such. "False Claims "'The claims are tantamount to those of a rainmaker,' said Robert A. Smith, Ph.D., epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, commenting on advertisements that surfaced in Wisconsin promoting lightscanning as an effective alternative to mammography. 'There is no evidence to date that justifies its use as a screening device.'..." The promotional materials touting this device as a "non-x-ray, painless and rapid breast screening technique" came from the Grables -- despite the verbal agreement they had made with the FDA that they would stop promoting it as a screening device. The article concludes: "'The real crime is that women undergoing lightscanning think they've been screened for breast cancer, but they haven't,' [Mark Bunge of the Radiation Protection Branch of the Wisconsin Department of Health] said. 'And now they may even be afraid of x-ray mammography.'" Deja vu, n'est pa? -A.A.