You see no conflict of interest in this being a Israeli company and the two physicians just happen to be from the same hospital in Israel?
I do believe that I already addressed that in my last post, and again- no I do not see conflicts of interest or anything other than you continuing to grasp at straws.
Many physicians have the opportunity to travel overseas and could have easily given their thumbs up to this endeavor, but, no
I can't really determine if you are being facetious here with such an absurd statement as this, c'mon paul really? Are you saying that physicians, as a standard practice jet all round the world to place hands on all the medical devices and services that are under development worldwide?
..... just these two (unrelated) doctors.
And of course first you challenge me with only providing one, and now the same challenge with only providing two, and etc; ad nauseam it is clear that you will continue to make unsuccessful attempts to challenge and discredit anything that does not in some way support or provide stuffing to prop up your straw man argument.
And they have $10 million in start up money. That is chump change in the world of medical imagery. The FDA will have little to do with approving this concept as it is mostly already approved technology that these people are trying to repackage as something new.
So $10 Mil Round 'A' funding is chump change? Mmm Ookaayy. Perhaps consider acquainting yourself with how the funding steps actually work, rather than making another demonstrably uninformed statement. $10mil is again a respectable showing for any startup, medical or otherwise. And funny that you should also say that the FDA, will have little to do with approving this concept- this is another preposterous statement since the FDA, continues to have tremendous influence on practically anything to do with the medical and health care services. As stipulated and mandated and required by law, the FDA routinely and continually approves new devices and services that have similarly been in use and practice for ages. This includes but is in no way limited to any xray, ultrasound, monitoring devices etc; and on and on. I could provide a link to the voluminous references and reasons why this is standard practice but really why should I? since this would simply amount to be like throwing a large volume of readily accessible common knowledge towards your pile of straw.
It is 3D, not holographic, imagining using old tricks that until now were considered parlor tricks. Actually, they still are. Yes, I am still laughing. The fact that you believe in this as "the next great holographic technology in medical imaging" is so full of erroneous claims
You continue to parrot this theme but provide no specifics, so I will continue to agree with how the rest of the world (including qualified experts) views are concerning this emerging development.
and has not made its way to any medical journal of importance by itself, alone, SHOULD give you pause. Meh. We shall see. :crackup:
I'll let the readers decide if this is like a shooting fish in a barrel, or a turkey shoot.
Would the
US National Library of Medicine & the National Institutes of Health PubMed Dot GOV be a sufficiant 'medical journal of importance' for you? There are of course several other 'medical journals of importance' that I could quote but c'mon paul, I derive no pleasure in dragging this rag doll argument that you are fielding through the brambles. Hence, this will be my final post on the matter.
Do yourself (and me) a small favor and at least read this
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. "CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates, for the first time, the feasibility of generating high quality, clinically relevant, 3D real-time colour dynamic holograms in a standard clinical setting with real patient volumetric data. The impact of computer-generated holography needs to be evaluated in controlled clinical trials."
Since you obviously refuse to listen to me and flail about mocking my words, perhaps you will heed what this bonafide, official, and dare I say, determining authority has to say on this matter. A little research goes a long way. And after all, You did just ask for it.
BTW, just out of curiosity, would you happen to originally hail from Missouri?
Remember this thing so next year when it is still looking for more investors, I can say "I told you so".
Sigh, yes- you have already told myself and others here many things.
FWIW Paul, I still have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for you and towards all others like yourself, (and myself, yes it's permissible to have self respect) that picked up the batons decades ago and soldiered on with research and advancements not just in holography but in all endeavours ie; life in general. But also, there always comes the time when the batons need to be handed off to the next generations. Attempts to hold onto the batons often does not end well for the bearer, or others that are in the exact same race, and sometimes leads to the bad form use of the batons as cudgels. We can and should continue to support in any and all ways possible for as long as we can these next generations, because truly that is in fact precisely where our mutual future awaits all of us.
Peace.