Having said that, I wish you would consider another adjunctive device. Vizilite is 2% acetic acid (which if you would like to save some money, you can buy in the grocery store as Heinz white vinegar. Go to UCLA or USC and see what the oral medicine specialist brings out from under the counter… Heinz. Then they give you a light made by Omini-Glo whose main market is selling them to kids at rave parties and campers, that has nothing special about it. No special wave length of light, nada. They then try to convince you (dentists) that chemiluminesence has something to do with oral cancer screening, but it is actually just the process of producing light by mixing two chemicals together. (Google it) Nothing to do with what is going on in the tissue at all. A competing product (MicroLux) does the same thing with electricity and has the same results. I’m not advocating for that product either, as I find the science just as weak, but wanted to make the point about the light source.

So what does all this do? The vinegar dessicates the tissue and removes all the mucopolysaccharides, and other coatings on the tissues that might cause light reflections and confuse/confound what you are looking for. After all the device only finds white lesions (not the most dangerous of the ones that move onto become cancer) and a white reflection needs to be eliminated to get a good look see. (Only 25% of all leucoplakias proceed to cancer, erythroplakias are way more dangerous.) GYN’s have done this for years with vinegar douches… since about 1947. They then looked at the cervix, with a vaginal speculum (a flashlight on a stick) and did really good exams. Actually they brought the death rate down about 71% over 10 years (48-58). No new science, no new treatments….. just early detection. And guess what, cervical cancer and 85% of all oral cancers are the same disease SCC. Screening works. It just take trained eyes and fingers, combined with knowledge of what to look for, which you already have.

The future of oral cancer screening is proteomics and genomics via salivary diagnostics (Wong et al UCLA), combined with tissue fluorescence which has about 60 million dollars in NIH money behind the science (there is only one product which uses this on the market today VELscope which I am also not advocating for) is nothing like tissue reflectance (Visilite), after protein and RNA markers are identified.

Vizilite is dying, the parent company is being delisted from the stock exchange, (it’s now about a dime a share) and their own press releases say they may not have the ability to stay viable over the next 12 months. The science just isn’t there. The marketplace is beginning to understand this.

So thank you for doing screenings, thanks for being part of the solution. Ditch the vinegar, you can still charge for the screening without wasting your money on a worthless device that your patients hate the taste of, and doesn’t bring much to the party.

what is wrong with aiw staff that they would not clean a baby within a 24 hour period? that shows their negligence.

nadya is not a crack mother with no experience with kids. even her mother who is her worst critic says she is a good mother. what is unique to nadya is that she has to provide for her family and the best and most profitable way is from the interest in her and her kids. aiw do not seem able to think that this is a unique situation that needs a unique answer to child care. since it is nadya’s home and nadya’s kids then i think aiw need to tow the line instead of trying to control the situation.

you had to know it would not end well since aiw specialises in foster care and they said from the get go that the kids should be fostered out. why do they need an attorney anyway?