<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why mammograms are not perfect?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.medrants.com/archives/2189/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/2189</link>
	<description>Contemplating medicine and the health care system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:35:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: PointOfLaw Forum</title>
		<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/2189/comment-page-1#comment-6939</link>
		<dc:creator>PointOfLaw Forum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2004 04:49:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medrants.com/archives/2004/12/12/why-mammograms-are-not-perfect/#comment-6939</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Gladwell on mammography&lt;/strong&gt;
The New Yorker&#039;s Malcolm Gladwell is out with an article on the very imperfect art/science of mammogram-reading. MedRants focuses in on the litigation implications; there&#039;s an enormous leeway to second-guess the readings of radiologists and others wh...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Gladwell on mammography</strong><br />
The New Yorker&#8217;s Malcolm Gladwell is out with an article on the very imperfect art/science of mammogram-reading. MedRants focuses in on the litigation implications; there&#8217;s an enormous leeway to second-guess the readings of radiologists and others wh&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
