InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
Subscribe Login/Register
S&P 500
5,567.19
(
1.06%
)
US TECH 100
19,828.00
(
0.95%
)
Dow Jones
39,375.87
(
0.17%
)
Brent Oil
86.78
(
0.00%
)
Bitcoin
57,978.28
(
2.35%
)
Post# of 39209
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

jmurfk

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 295
Posts 26523
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 06/30/2009

jmurfk

Re: squeak1 post# 31608

Wednesday, 12/19/2012 11:56:48 AM

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 11:56:48 AM

Post# of 39209

I personally would never consider taking a mammogram for any reason whatsoever knowing how useless it is



Wow, Useless huh? Your statements don't make sense. Since IMDS CTLM studies are all based on the CTLM being an adjunct to mammography. This would make the CTLM even worse than useless. "Adjunct to" is dependent on or subordinate to. Meaning the CTLM is dependent or subordinate to mammography. IMDS doesn't even claim it's a replacement. The article last week is about it being an adjunct to mammography also, lol.

You realize, out of the 230K new annual cases of breast cancer, around 138K are found by mammography? It's far from useless and the CTLM is no replacement.

Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.

Sign Up