3/21/2005

8 Comments

1. The scan seems fake, however the analysis of it is accurate.

   Comment by Ladainian — 3/22/2005 @ 12:07 am

2. The problem with CTs is that they are not the final word. I had a minor, transient stroke earlier this year. Got a CT and it showed nothing. A subsequent MRI determined that I did have a stroke, and its location.

   Let me add that the CT in question was done some years ago. I dare say a CT done today would show a different situation.

   Comment by Alan Kellogg — 3/22/2005 @ 12:28 am

3. This is great. The bloggers are going to free us from the tyranny if the MD’s.

   Comment by actus — 3/22/2005 @ 6:05 am

4. Which MDs? The ones who agree with you, or the ones who disagree?

   Comment by Xrlq — 3/22/2005 @ 7:18 am

5. Any 75-85 year old with that scan is Terri Schiavo. The amount of brain tissue missing is stunning. The enlarged ventricles [central space, )( ] are frightening, the highlighted sulci-gyri [peripheral frond-like structures] are macbre. This is not your grandmother.

   [I did not "read" c-t's, but saw many normal and abnormal ones. Nothing compares to Terri's. Why would it?]

   Comment by J. Peden — 3/22/2005 @ 8:03 am

6. “macabre” - I need a scan.

   Comment by J. Peden — 3/22/2005 @ 8:05 am

7. “Which MDs? The ones who agree with you, or the ones who disagree? ”

   Which ones agree with me? I think this whole thing is fantastic. Distributed diagnosis. Where is the Kerning in the CT scan? Ahh.. the web.

   Comment by actus — 3/22/2005 @ 8:32 am

8. Some technical analyses can be followed quite adequately by an interested, informed layperson. Others can’t.

   The logic–or illogic–underlying a position is almost always accessible to such a person.

   Some welcome this unexpected increase in transparency; others don’t. Either way, these aren’t hard concepts to grasp.

   Comment by AMac — 3/22/2005 @ 11:20 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.