"it wasn't about duplicating an actual clinical patient trial but rather about confirming that the testing process was valid and reproducible"
Valid regarding what? That it does in fact detects AD in the brain and we didn't buy a lemon? Or was this validation more about the technique used in conducting the blood test? How can they assess proper technique without checking resulted accuracy? Without a specificity and sensitivity figure, can we really feel at ease that we didn't "buy a lemon"? I honestly do not understand.
Within the past few days I've read up on a few articles regarding AD diagnostics currently being studied...from sniffing peanut butter to another spinal fluid diagnostic, and they are all several years away to market, yet, at some level ours is months away from making a few sales but not any kind of article anywhere can be read about it recently. Peanut butter diagnostics makes better news than a boring old blood test?