Patsy, I think you are misunderstanding what I am inferring.
The point I am making is why spend so much time and money on a
automation process that, in the end may end up as useless. Kind of
like the "cart before the horse". Why not do the initial trial by
hand, as the mouse trials were done. If sucessful, then move on to
scale this up to a larger group trial.
I would not expect death from BCG injections, as it is used in huge
quantities for bladder cancer.
The begining trial as I understand it will be 40 individuals. I
consider that "small". I realize that is a relative term.
If asking questions is "grumbling" then I am guilty.





--- In nathanfaustmantrials@yahoogroups.com, Patsy Van Huyck
<patsy@...> wrote:
>
> 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=
X3oDMTJxMmg3MXB1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE2NDEyMTQ1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwN
TA2MTY2MgRtc2dJZAMyNDUEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE3MDU4NDUyMQ
-->
> >
> >
> >
> > 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?
>