InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

Boxsterfan

12/01/10 2:36 PM

#33202 RE: lobcrab #33201

1. The operative word is "seems".

Defintion:
To appear to be true, probable, or evident

The english language us fraught with pitfalls. They stated nothing other than conjecture. Way to go out on a ledge their medgadget.

2. Questions about radiation exposure also (maybe this is a hint to what the FDA wants). Also, if medgadget is questioning the radiation dosage (I'm sure Dean told them about the 50% less dosage that he touts) then they may be having quite a bit of skepticism in regards to dean's claims also.

3. Image limitations. If a 2-D image is blurry or doesn't show the desired levels of contrast, then how can a 3-D image of combined 2-D images be any better.

That's my take. Don't be so thirsty my friends.
icon url

IMGG4TP

12/01/10 2:52 PM

#33203 RE: lobcrab #33201

LOB.......if you read the article with the rose colored glasses off, you will see that Medgadget reached their indecisive conclusion after consulting the exact same resources that you and I have had access to, and have been debating the credibility thereof, for months. There source was Dean Janes. The truth is that they know no more about the effectiveness and safety of the DVis than we do.
icon url

Physics309

12/01/10 6:30 PM

#33227 RE: lobcrab #33201

Those sure looked like 3-D images to me. I think the debate on whether or not the device makes 3-D images is settled.