InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

opportunityknocking

10/09/08 11:32 AM

#16742 RE: HALF FULL GLASS #16741

That is like saying to Michael Phelps yes, you have won several gold metals, and clearly and decisively won, but did you wiggle your toes in the water to help propel you? We got unphathomable results and you are a spoiled sport.
icon url

Gold Seeker

10/09/08 11:33 AM

#16743 RE: HALF FULL GLASS #16741

Half, no that is not true. In a study, you have to have both normals and actual cancers. Specificity is totally based on the normal group and sensitivity is totally based on the cancer group. The only thing common between the two groups is the same cutoff level has to be used for both of them.

We have just never seen any prior data where all of the cancers have RECAF levels up to 4900 and why for the first time has he not included any staging for the cancer group?

I think his objective was to show really good numbers and indeed he did.


Anyone now have any doubts why the FDA requires controlled clincial trials?