The answer in short is because if a mouse dies, nobody cares. Just
think if the "small human trial" was a failure either due to huge
complications or due to the lack of results. Do you think that they
would just get to try again with another dose? The assay is very
important so that the trial can be successful, and we can then move to
the next stage.

We all want the cure to have been in 2002, but dealing with the FDA is
tediously slow. Grumbling isn't going to get the research done any more
quickly.

Patsy

>
> Re: NEJM Correspondence
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nathanfaustmantrials/message/245;_ylc=X3oDMTJxMmg\
3MXB1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE2NDEyMTQ1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTY2MgRtc2dJZAMyNDU\
Ec2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE3MDU4NDUyMQ-->
>
>
>
> Posted by: "stilltypeone" stilltypeone@...
> <mailto:stilltypeone@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20NEJM%20Correspondence>
> stilltypeone <http://profiles.yahoo.com/stilltypeone>
>
>
> Sat Feb 3, 2007 6:57 pm (PST)
>
> Sue, can we agree that these trials will not proceed until
> the "automated assay" is completed?
> Did Faustman have this automated assay during the mouse trials?
> I am guessing the answer is no.
> So, why the need for automation for a small human trial?