hi umshebi, page-44

Whooooaaa there riders!!!

Firstly, go easy quoting me like a messiah! There is plenty to be upset about, but be careful not to latch on to what may seem like your only glimmer of hope in terms of someone who still believes - quite clearly the vast majority of the market does not, and that is not to be ignored...remember I thought it would be getting up around 5c towards end of this quarter and here we are at 1c! Still, all depends on Sigma to save a sinking ship - and signs are that it will - but don't bank on it...

Secondly, fjficm is correct, but I would like to pick up on a few things. Word I get from Ginzburg is that the CPI has the potential to change ECGs (substantially) for the better. Putting aside the process of making the clinical diagnosis, let's just focus it back on the technology of ECG:

1. They have developed algorithms that enable the objective measure of ECG waves over extended periods. Those algorithms demonstrate a slight increase in specificity of diagnosis (it's more accurate in terms of diagnosing the underlying condition), but mostly there is a large improvement in sensitivity - far fewer false negatives.
2. My understanding is that cardiologists miss stuff on ECGs up to 20% of the time. All of that may be a bit mute when one argues that the other gammut of testing picks up on this, but the fact remains that the CPI will drammatically improve the accuracy of ECG interpretation - and the ECG is one of the first (and simplest, consumer accepted) tests a clinician will do - and they do them often.
3. Storing the ECG electronically, centrally, gives the ability to longitudinally monitor a patients ECGs for change over time, in response to treatment, diet, behaviour modification etc etc. - and objectively with much greater sensitivity and therefore less margin for error and with greater capability to tweak interventions at relatively lower costs (hmmm, that will probably interest some decision makers). Amazing how the medical profession is always happy to chase the next great technology (usually at great cost) and pass that cost on to customers and governments. Maybe IMI will not get up with this because of that mind set!

Beware though - are Ginzburg/IMI preaching to the converted in terms of the new Chair, Walker, you, me etc., when it is really just nothing much at all?? Even if they're not, can they preach well enough to the profession/medical community to get them converted? I certainly hope so.