Our Stance on Faustman…
Hope you all had a great weekend. While we normally use Mondays to outline some of the topics in our reports, today’s going to be different. Today we wanted to answer a question that we’ve been asked quite a bit in the past few weeks.
The question: What do we think of Dr. Denise Faustman’s research? Does it meet our definition of a practical cure?
We’ve been slow to respond to the recent publishing of her Phase 1 trials, because we didn’t want to put out an opinion before we had analyzed all the facts. It took us a bit of time researching and investigating, with quite a bit of internal debate in the office. But in the end, we came to a conclusion.
The answer: Faustman’s research fits our definition of a Practical Cure.
Now to elaborate on our view, this isn’t a ringing endorsement, merely cautious optimism based on what we’ve seen so far. Her overall goal, timetable and research ( if all goes according to plan) matches our beliefs on what a practical cure should accomplish. We still have problems with the results of Phase 1 (in particular the unusually small trial size), but the goal and plan matches what we want, and until we have more data that proves otherwise, we are calling her research one of the possible paths to a Practical Cure. Maybe things won’t pan out as planned, but for now we’re erring on the side of cautious optimism, and not conservative pessimism.
We’ve previously said that there are only 5 projects in clinical trials that meet our definition of a cure, and soon we will be elaborating on just what those projects are in order to keep you all that much more informed.
Until Next Time