Thanks Cat, that's the same snail mail I received today, and while knowing it was boilerplate in nature (no shocker there), and having understood the "goes without saying" parts of safety, more research yadda yadda, I kind of honed in on the "Clinical development program" part, since it clearly insinuates that THAT is what must occur, prior to any clinical STUDY being initiated, and of course since the study is what we are mostly concerned with, the Clinical Development Program becomes of paramount importance.
This reminds of of "advisory committees" where they "study" the issue until the appropriate number of pension credits are obtained, at which time they will tell you what you knew they would say all along.
Look at how long it's taking Haacke and others to just get TESTING off the ground, going through the proper ethics review process, and that's just to scan people.
They can hold this up in committee for as long as is deemed politically expedient to do so. So we keep writing, because, as far as I'm concerned, the reply isn't something I'd line my cat's litterbox with, if I had a cat...
"Time, care, and judicious oversight" means that if and when anything is initiated, brought to fruition, and results in Stanford getting another feather in it's cap, there will be hundreds of people lining up to take credit for it, "good for them", cause it takes guts to follow the pack and play it safe.
Meanwhile, the MS patient languishes and not in any form of stasis, they progress further.
I recall some of us being laughed at when broaching the subject of inside forces waylaying such research for reasons other than patient safety, which is oft quoted as the single most important qualifier to move to the next level, and is THE number one reason quoted for such waylaying, whether it exists as indicated or not, whether it exists in substantial proportions or not. They could always do angioplasty as a fallback position.
And here we have, in writing, the top brass at Stanford (and I suspect all the replies if they come will be coordinated), telling the public at large with great certainty, that nothing will happen for the foreseeable future.
Conspiracy or not, regardless of label, the outcome's the same.
Just wanted to add, that when they say "clinical development program", what they mean is, this isn't Dr. Dake's study any more, it's every department at Stanford, including neuros, getting a piece of the action, a finger in the pie and a piece of the credit. No, to the average MS person out there, they don't CARE who gets what credit for what study or proper prestige or acclamation, they want HELP and don't CARE about the internal machinations. In this regard though, I can firmly state that Dr. Dake would be most justified in saying, "they started it".
Meanwhile, the patient progresses....
RRMS Dx'd 2007, first episode 2004. Bilateral stent placement, 3 on left, 1 stent on right, at Stanford August 2009. Watch my operation video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwc6QlLVtko
, Virtually symptom free since, no relap