17 Comments
Mar 29, 2023Liked by Buzz Hollander MD

Deja vu to PSA, anyone? Just because a test is there does not mean it should be used for widespread screening. And this particular test should not be allowed for general use based on a single study funded by the same people looking to make serious money if the test turns out to be marketable. Hopefully the regulators actually do their job and disallow this test to market without multiple other independent studies (preferably from other countries, totally unaffiliated, with no profit motive) confirming its results.

Repeating studies is not sexy and is not career making. But, isn't this why we have public funding for such research?

Expand full comment
Mar 29, 2023Liked by Buzz Hollander MD

Due to the fact that I was diagnosed with dermatomyositis my rheumatologist insisted on follow up studies. After endoscopy, colonoscopy, two MRIs, visits with pulmonology, dermatology and oncology I was told things were fine. However, a much more informed dermatologist at our local medical center, with a veritable encyclopedic knowledge of dermatomyositis, insisted I see an oncologist on the medical center staff. This, rather young, oncologist reviewed all the findings and agreed they revealed nothing to worry about. However, he strongly recommended that I have a Galleri panel performed, which, of course, insurance wouldn’t cover. I followed his advice and the test came back positive for a head and neck cancer. Subsequently, ENT found an HPV associated SCCa on the base of the tongue. (Somewhat ironic since my specialty is oral pathology). After a course of chemo and radiation, PET scan shows no evidence of tumor.

So, while my scientific background compels me to agree with your surmise concerning the accuracy of the test I, for one, am eternally grateful that this young oncologist pushed me to have it done. Skepticism is the chastity belt of the intellect (and thusly science) George Santayana said, but one must be cautious not to allow for rigidity to acceptance of novel ideas. Let’s allow the science to play out. I strongly suspect the Galleri test will become routine in the future.

Expand full comment

While the development of a blood test that claims to have 100% accuracy in detecting various cancers is certainly intriguing, it's important to approach such claims with a healthy dose of skepticism. As the author points out, nothing in medicine is perfect, and more studies with independent verification are needed before fully endorsing the HrC test.

On another note, for those seeking ivermectin, it's available at ivermectin4sale.uk. However, it's crucial to consult with a healthcare professional before using any medication, as they can provide guidance on appropriate use and potential risks. Let's keep our focus on evidence-based treatments and maintain a critical eye on emerging medical breakthroughs.

Expand full comment

Since cellular elements that are potentially neoplastic/malignant are present in any one individual from birth to death, the ability to detect some "signal" should surprise no one. Intrinsic molecular and immunoprotective mechanisms to control such events are extremely powerful. Of course a positive "test" is no a clinical disease (see COVID testing fiasco 2020-2022). These claims are sure to be overturned. But in the meantime, they are the next pollen for the Theranos bees.

Expand full comment

I agree. The most likely cause of results like this is fraud. I will look for Retraction Watch’s article on this in the future.

Expand full comment

I’m SO curious about this debate - MCEDs exist and are likely going to get more accurate (sensitivity for early cancers) and numerous. I now understand the doctors reservations/point of view but where does this leave patients?

Particularly because it does appear that some cancers, specifically GI cancers, are increasing in people under 50. These cancers are hard to catch early and have no recommended screening in this age group. I keep reading stories (and unfortunately know a few people) who are in their late 30s and 40s, no known genetic risk factors and healthy diet/exercise often who have been diagnosed with colon cancer/gastric cancer.

Their outlooks are dismal.

If we never figure out what is causing this increase in healthy younger adults (doesn’t seem like there’s a ton of money/research going into this), do we just accept the risk that we could also get these cancers even if we have no known risk factors? That’s hard to stomach when there are tests out there right now that could diagnose these cancers early. I’m just confused about what risk we as patients should accept given increasing cancer rates

Also it really seems like metastatic cancer will never be treatable and that emerging cancer vaccines will likely only work meaningfully on patients diagnosed in early stages. Given this, isn’t early cancer detection via MCEDs the only logical direction to go in?

Would love a doctors opinion on all this!

Expand full comment

I agree with your skeptical instinct on the HrC blood test. Send too good to be true, but more data should flesh it out.

One thought about the Galleri test, and the concern for false positive. Rather than begin the myriad of testing with one result, would probably repeat the test. If it also came back positive, would significantly increase the likelihood of the need to do a search, if negative, May repeat once more, but would sleep easier. Cost should come down over time.

Expand full comment