On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:05:33 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

"Our in-house counsel, Simon Rofe,
has been speaking to medical experts to understand the scientific basis of
the test and if the B sample is actually necessary."

I thought the regs REQUIRED two tests, one to confirm. After all, it
isn't just the test itself that is being confirmed, but possible
issues with controls or contamination or singular events at the lab
(it was a pretty standard test at the hospital lab in Baltimore that
got messed up, over and over for a year, with lives on the line, so it
isn't just how reliably the test CAN be done - it is how well it WAS
done).

If the rules require it, then it is required, and thus necessary. What
is particularly hard about that?


Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...