Replies to post #1041 on Verisante Technology Inc (VRS.H)

[Huggy Bear]

I very much disagree with you on this statement sir:

My point is that it does not tell a dermatologist anything they do not already know from visual inpection

The ABCD method of visual inspection and dermatologist impression of need for biopsy is highly inaccurate, whereas the Aura is highly impressive in areas of specificity, hence the reduction of actual biopsies required, both costly to the patient or the system.

The ABCD old school method of identifying suspicious skin conditions is just as good as the Aura? Hmmm, the clinical studies you now say believe are valid also clearly state that the Aura is a vast improvement over ABCD and the MelaFind as well.

Im not about to do the DD for you on that.

[Michael Anderson]

That is completely untrue. Do you know the success rate of simply the dermatologists expertise? Its nowhere near that of this device or even other devices out there such as Mela's. Do you know how many times a patient is overlooked based simply on a dermatologists expertise? Too many

Your statement on it not really being useful or required to get the great results, is incorrect.

It is very useful to Derms, as it can only enhance, greatly, what they currently do. It can help put them out in front of the standard derm

In actuality, its excellent for standard doctors, as where a patient may never think to go to a derm, it gives a great way to get that cancer recognized quick and get them to a derm.

It has many positives and extremely high benefits that you purposely overlook