-
Website
http://venturebeat.com/ -
Original page
http://venturebeat.com/2007/05/02/how-not-to-write-about-cancer-diagnostics/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Eric Eldon
349 comments · 13 points
-
edsion007
54 comments · 1 points
-
Haggie
87 comments · 3 points
-
Matt Marshall
48 comments · 2 points
-
MG Siegler
1126 comments · 30 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
5 o’clock roundup: Mac fans try to hijack Windows, Emblaze unveils First Else smartphone
6 hours ago · 4 comments
-
Augmented reality to be a $732 million market by 2014?
3 hours ago · 1 comment
-
Pixable lets you print out customized calendars from Facebook content
1 day ago · 22 comments
-
Blood in the streets?
12 hours ago · 4 comments
-
Hulu U.S. video streams soar by nearly 50 percent in October, Google’s YouTube flat
11 hours ago · 3 comments
-
5 o’clock roundup: Mac fans try to hijack Windows, Emblaze unveils First Else smartphone
The "gold standard" - a long-term, double-blind survey on a randomly selected population is of academic curiosity, and serves as a leash commercial marketing of new drugs. As such, it is useful to protect the public. But the EPCA-2 test need not be so restricted.
If NASA had used the equivalent of the controlled double-blind study during the Apollo program, the U.S. would probably still be trying to get to the moon. Not to mention the trillions of dollars that would have been wasted.
I know the clinical-trial process can be slow and that it frustrates many patients and their loved ones. But if a test like EPCA-2 is going to drive clinical decisions -- and really, that's the only reason to care about it, because if it doesn't catch cancer earlier and improve patient survival, what good is it? -- it needs to be proven to work. And that means doing the prospective trials that will show that there's actually a benefit to screening for EPCA-2, since otherwise it's just one more unproven diagnostic that will suck up healthcare resources and quite possibly result in unnecessary surgeries and their attendant side effects. A test that doesn't actually show you what you think it does can do a lot more harm than good.
I don't even know how you'd begin to design a double-blinded study for something as singular as a moon shot. Clinical trials are for studying population effects, not for solving engineering problems.
And now the worldwide rights to the technology, regardless of its merit, will lie festering in a litigation trap for years. Good job fellas.