It was stupid to have even started this trial, that is the insight that Dan brought to the table.
How many pap smears has Dan had, CATT?
I don't know why you won't get it.
Who would you be more inclined to listen to? A dentist or one of his patients.
This is from a doctor who is a woman:
A study from Bristol in 2003 found that 1,000 women have to be screened for 35 years to prevent one death from cervical cancer; and to prevent that death, 80 women have to have further investigation, with 50 women having treatment to their cervices. Four out of five women found at screening to have "high-grade" changes in their cervix did not go on to develop invasive cancer.
Clearly, there is a benefit – but overall, it's small. That potential for good has to be weighed against the risks of treatment. It's known that having a cervical biopsy – which is done to get more information about the degree of abnormality – raises the risk of pre-term birth in later pregnancies. And the worry and anxiety that the results cause shouldn't be underestimated.
I'm not against screening, but I am against unthinking screening.
The woman's math may be suspect and one can accuse her of being stupid for not avoiding a risk of a terrible disease no matter how small but she is making a personal statement about a risk she has reason to be acquainted with in a way O'Connor and Petit cannot be.
I once tremulously asked a woman in a long-, long-running Phase III breast cancer trial about her thoughts on a man lining up with her and other women for a mammogram. She was most appropriately understanding. Men do get breast cancer - rarely. The thought of the discomfort should be striking even to you, CATT, and Dan too.
Beyond that, ADXS took a very heavy hit to its stock price with numerous articles scoffing at excuses for termination.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
