Should know more in a couple of weeks with upcoming Q2 CC but what is your idea Dwoods for financing without dilution at this point?
I think we both agree that not pursuing insurance approval from the beginning was a mistake but they appear to be on the right track now.
Don't need your lackey hacks calculations, difficult task even for him since none of you know what my position is.
I know exactly where it is.
If and when they get insurance approval and approval for the 3D application which will open it up to a new world of possibilities with pathologist and surgeons, I see the potential of recovering principal and then some.
As I've said, the smart money people seem to see something on the horizon that makes it worth while to keep MELA alive. How many years now have you been predicting for them to pull the plug? Your bloviating post on BK around the corner, magical ATM drying up, implosion imminent etc, etc, etc are too numerous to count.
On Yahoo summary
Fall back and regroup, it's not over until it's over. The real money people see something on the horizon, despite your dire predictions of them pulling the plug.
"The realities of business and economics truly do elude you"
What about those BK predictions and the magical ATM drying up? What about Broadfin pulling the plug?
" I know the capt will now jump in and remind me of the Magic ATM and all the hedge fund managers who are standing in line to throw more money down the toilet. Problem is this company is now nearly a 30 cent stock and from the amount of Spam lately, appears to be touted on some penny stock scam promotion somewhere. It is going to be hugely tough to find a new money lender given the recent Liquidated Damages paid and the fund managers need to demonstrate to his investors that he has fulfilled his requirement to adhere to his Fiduciary Duty to them." May 14, 14
I believe that I am smart enough to see the potential of the machine. Apparently, so do companies like Sabby and Broadfin.
You're so generous General. I don't suppose that you have any comment on his "fifty sense"?
I seriously doubt that you would let me or any other long slide on that one.
"Profits as in law suits for a misdiagnosis?
Specialists have an issue with GPs acting like specialists."
Perhaps you should pass along your words of wisdom to the Dancer Man's GP friend who seems to quite satisfied by being cut happy for the money (so posted by the Dancer Man) instead of referring to a Dermatologist prior to cutting. GEE, I wonder how many "false positives" this man has cut into to make a buck?
" (as a general practitioner) It does not make financial or clinical sense for me to refer a patient to a dermatologist simply because he has a suspicious mole. I simply biopsy the lesion, spend fifty sense for a disposable scalpel and receive nearly $200 for the service. You think I am going to give up that billing code for a $25 profit? If the biopsy comes back positive THEN I will refer to a dermatologist.
End of story guys. I got this directly from the mouth of a clinical physician and businessman who is well respected and owns a successful medical practice in one of the biggest metropolitan areas of the country." Fncydansir Jul 16, 2013
We've been over this before and you actually had a qualified Derm post on this (whom by the way you accused me of impersonating, just because you and your lackey hacks run multiple IDs, doesn't mean everyone else does) and as he pointed out, it's a perfectly acceptable practice and said if he had a PA, he would prefer them to use Melafind.
"would venture to say that Melafind had a 15% performance increase over the Derms in the "false positive" department."
Just for clarification, Derms had a 15% performance decrease in false positives with Melafind data input and more importantly a 21% performance increase in detection. With Melafind data input. The 68% detection goes along with what MELA has been holding to that the average Derm has about a 70% detection rate on the first exam of a melanoma.
"Hey cpt, how many false positives errors were committed by the group of derms using the MelaFind. For some reason I could not find that number in the mela PR piece.
Isn't the number of false positives important?" Educatedidiot
"The biopsy sensitivity of dermatologists increased from 68% to 89% with the addition of the MelaFind system probability information, and specificity increased from 39% to 54%. Sensitivity measures the percentage of lesions correctly identified as melanoma, and specificity measures the percentage of lesions correctly identified as not being melanoma. The average percentage of benign lesions selected for biopsy decreased from 61% to 46%. The p-value in all three measurements was statistically significant at p"
HHMMM, now let me see Mr Selfproclaimedgenius, coming from a layman standpoint (who knows how to read), if specificity increased 15% and benign lesions for biopsy decreased 15%, I would venture to say that Melafind had a 15% performance increase over the Derms in the "false positive" department.
"And of course, Parcel Boy can never find anything directly wrong with any of my actual arguments"
As I have said before, if you are such a genius, why don't you get someone to print your claims countering MELA's claims? I'm quite sure that you could get your bud over at the street to put your claims into his blog with some of the hearsay stuff he's put up.
"BUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THAT THE STUDY DID NOT COMPARE THE MELAFIND TO A DERMATOSCOPE ON REAL LESIONS!!!WHAT IS MELA AFRAID OF? "
Funny how these test that MELA is conducting seem to be acceptable to the real world in the Dermatology community but not to some anonymous (and paid?) hack on a Yahoo message board.
"Also, note that no dermatologists were allowed to participate. Why would they exclude the very people who are the most relevant."
Moron, why don't you try reading something before you start your typical spin bashing? They did a similar test with residents that they did earlier with Derms that was reported at the 2014 American Dermoscopy Meeting, June 17-19 in Bar Harbor, Maine.
You really are an educated idiot.
"These new findings correlate with the previously reported study results that showed dermatologists' overall diagnostic accuracy improved 18%. Similar to the residents, the dermatologist improvement occurred with a non-significant change in total number of lesions selected for biopsy."
"Data from 122 resident dermatologists were analyzed. Biopsy sensitivity increased by 29%, 54% to 83%, and the percentage of benign lesions selected for biopsy decreased by 17%, 50% to 33%. The percentage of resident dermatologists electing to biopsy all 5 melanomas increased by 46%, 3% to 49%, and overall diagnostic accuracy increased by 22%, 52% to 74%. The p-value in all four measurements was statistically significant at p
These new findings correlate with the previously reported study results that showed dermatologists' overall diagnostic accuracy improved 18%. Similar to the residents, the dermatologist improvement occurred with a non-significant change in total number of lesions selected for biopsy.
The resident dermatologist study results will be presented at the Practical Dermatology & Dermatopathology Symposium August 14-17 in Vail, Colorado."