I am not a medical student; I don't need
to be. I can read a medical journal. I
am an engineer with a background in
research science, if that matters.
You can read here
http://www.tdtinc.com/t_
prod_blood.html for the salient
representations made about GCC vs. CEA. I
discovered this immediately in Feb. 2003,
when it was first announced, as that was
when my friend needed help with colon
cancer.
My friend's very reputable oncologist
("Dr. X") acted as if GCC didn't exist,
upon my inquiry in early 2003, and I did
not want to aggravate X by debating it. X
used CEA continually. My friend's regimen
was world-class, except for my personal
antipathy for CEA. My friend, who was
Stage III, meanwhile, seems to be cured.
In 2003, I spoke numerous times with the
director of marketing at TDT, Andrew
Boyce. He reiterated the miraculous
claims of GCC, but curiously explained any
lack of aggressive marketing:
"Unnecessary; the product will sell
itself," he said. There was never any FDA
approval, although that did not concern
me; I understand such approval is a
protracted process. Patients have always
had to pay for the test out-of-pocket;
$500 US; no Medicare reimbursement, as
still stated on the TDT website.
My colleagues in 2003 considered the TDT
product to be a scam. I was more
favorably impressed. One reason why was
that, in 2003, my internet searches
revealed promising British descriptions of
GCC, which were not of TDT origin. I was
the only one pursuing research on the
matter.
My friend never took the test, and I have
no feedback at all about its efficacy.
Now, I notice, TDT does not answer the
phone, and does not return phone calls.
Andrew Boyce's extension issues a
recording that he is no longer with the
company. All calls go into voice mail.
If I get a call back, I'll let you know.
Assuming TDT is out of business, having
touted a miraculous product over the
previous 5 years, implies, but does not
conclusively prove, that GCC is a scam.
There are many causes of business failure.
I am still optimistic, and was hoping for
some corroboration in this forum on the
efficacy of GCC and its superiority to
CEA.
Curiously, I have never read any article
deriding GCC as a hoax, either. In my
personal experience, hoaxes of such
magnitude should draw fire from reputable
critics.
There is another point, legally referred
to as "detrimental reliance." My
conversations with Boyce indicated that
his company wanted to sell the product as
some sort of curiosity, while avoiding
detrimental reliance. The real value of
any product, however, exists in its
ability to be relied upon. That TDT
seemed to avoid detrimental reliance is a
negative.
I'll elaborate on this a bit more. Boyce
was there to sell his test to private
individuals for $500, but he did not want
anyone to forsake chemotherapy because his
test indicated "all clear." That could
cause death, if someone who might be cured
relied, instead, on a snake oil test that
said there was no need for chemotherapy,
because of a test indicating absence of
cancer in the body.
My friend might not have needed
chemotherapy at all, according to a
different oncologist, "Dr. Y." There was
a 50-50 chance, according to Y, that
cancer was completely removed from my
friend's body, upon resection of the
colon.
So if the GCC test is really as accurate
and sensitive as TDT claims, I would
surmise that it could be relied upon to
AVOID chemotherapy, which is no picnic.
I liken modern chemotherapy to "carpet
bombing" of the insides of the human body.
50 years from now, it will be outdated by
far more precise methods, and TESTING
(i.e, surveillance) hopefully, that might
eliminate the need for over-use of
treatment, altogether.
