I had no idea my questions would spark such widesp

I had no idea my questions would spark such widespread negativity
towards me. I am a long, truly wish that AMBS succeeds on many
fronts, am not related to the quack on other board, etc.
As per cannoli's post:
(DIA=Drug Information Association)
Quote:
Biomarkers in the Clinical Trial Development of Alzheimer Disease Agents: The Laboratory Perspective

John Allinson, VP Biomarker Lab Services, ICON Development Solutions, UK discussed a number of the analytical techniques used in the lab to detect AD, stressing that using different biomarkers in combination does, indeed, increase their sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative predictive values. Yet, the challenges are many:

There exists a dizzying array of analytical techniques and technology platforms available to measure AD pathology. It is difficult to choose the right combination from among 20+ methods and multiple technology platforms, especially as different methods/platforms will produce different results.
Other difficulties arise from the fact that there are still validation issues with certain methodologies, calibration materials are not yet fully standardized internationally although efforts are progressing in this arena, samples are difficult to collect, and at this point it is impossible to ensure that control groups are free of patients who are in pre-clinical stages of AD.
While progress is being made, no diagnostic process for AD is completely accurate; we do not have proven surrogate endpoints.
Currently, the gold standard method for clinical diagnosis is still performed post mortem.
My concern was also that at this point it is likewise impossible to
ensure that those enrolled in the Early Stage Alzheimers cohort of the
study are composed of patients whose cognitive dysfunction is due to
ALzheimers, and not another form of early dementia.
I was not intending to sow seeds of doubt at all, but rather to see if
anyone had any thoughts on this subject. I will leave it at that.