InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

dan1drew2

09/20/10 10:39 AM

#27236 RE: bohring #27235

Doc.. I can appreciate your insight. Please keep it comm'n. As time goes on and you familiarize yourself with the board members here i'm sure questions will come at you from many sides.

I get the impression that you can handle it !!

Again thanks and enjoy the ride.


JB
icon url

mr_sano

09/20/10 11:13 AM

#27237 RE: bohring #27235

Bohring, great points. We should be pursuing the scientific review side of the device and its functions but instead the company pays for another MTV spot to tell current shareholders we have no news.

icon url

Dr. Mugs

09/20/10 12:21 PM

#27248 RE: bohring #27235

Dr.Bohring... Welcome to the board. Could you please explain why you feel that after approval there will be a risk that studies do not support the number of applications touted. Also, what field of medicine are you in. thanks.
icon url

DonKeyhoti

09/20/10 4:05 PM

#27274 RE: bohring #27235

Thanks for the informative post. You mentioned the risk after approval could be that studies would not support the number of applications touted.

Would you please elaborate on some of the applications presented by IMGG that could be viewed by the imaging industry as questionable.
icon url

bohring

11/01/10 7:03 PM

#30756 RE: bohring #27235

I know I am replying to my own post. I am not surprised by this decision. Please see what I wrote previously. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. It is not the processing speed, but rather the image quality and its ability to do what it says it can - safely.

Perhaps the consultants can spin the data to show performance equivalence - if not, real scientific comparisons will need to be done. I am wondering who will shell out the dollars for that research.