Punch out stated: "When dealing with real patients, controlled experiments are usually impossible due to fundamental constraints (e.g. ethical concerns)."
Really? You are dealing with a sample of blood for the RECAF test. The Vet draws the blood, sends it in, a RECAF test is done and the results are returned to the VET. What are these ethical concerns you mention?
From your response, the study being done has no controls whatsoever so this "study" fits into the category of an "observational study".
Observational studies are usually done when there is no practical method of doing a controlled study.
Why would an uncontrolled observational study be done at all when a scientific controlled study can easily be done with known blood samples from reliable sources?
What is expected to be learned from this random obsservational study that cannot be more accurately learned from using controlled samples obtained from normal sources?
Is the purpose to make the VET think they are running some sort of important clinical study? IMO, this is all just a hyped up method of giving away free samples and obtaining non-scientific results that are unreliable.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
