[Jackie07]

Interesting comment at Amazon.com about the book by his long-time (ago) research partner:

I have known Robert Nagourney, the author of this book, both as a friend and colleague. I am not surprised to find that he has written a book that is both highly readable and which also carries much information of real value to cancer patients. My concerns with this book stem from glaring inaccuracies which, if left uncorrected, will unjustly damage the reputations of several clinicians and scientists who, to at least the same degree as Dr. Nagourney, have eschewed the easy path and instead have dedicated their careers to improving cancer care and extending lives by personalizing cancer treatments for individual patients.

Apart from a pervasive theme throughout the book wherein Dr. Nagourney seems, both overtly and by inference, to credit himself with the work of others (this is wholly unnecessary, by the way, as Dr. Nagourney has indeed accomplished much of which he rightfully can be proud without the need for embellishment), is his characterization of all "cell proliferation" technologies - and particularly that which was offered by a company called Oncotech, as, basically, worthless. It should be noted that Dr. Nagourney and I were co-founders of Oncotech (no longer in business). The company originally was founded upon my technology, the DiSC assay, which is based upon the "cell death" endpoint. Dr. Nagourney still uses a re-branded modification of this (DiSC) assay in his own commercial laboratory. Dr. Nagourney's quarrel with Oncotech appears to lie not with my DiSC technology but instead in its use of a completely different technology, added later on. His strong language of condemnation implies that, using this "cell proliferation" technology, Oncotech basically provided a worthless service to more than 50,000 cancer patients.

I will not burden the reader with specifics except to state that Dr. Nagourney's assertion, if not deliberate, bespeaks an incomplete understanding of the technology which he carelessly trashes - and, apparently, also of the considerable body of published literature which supports it. Unaccountably, Dr. Nagourney presents himself as a hero who courageously battles opposition within the company, in order to protect cancer patients from being victimized. In fact, I and others at Oncotech, aware that every laboratory test has both strengths and weakness, devoted ourselves to assuring that the tests were performed accurately and that physicians clearly understood what the tests could tell us and what they could not. Hundreds of physicians were long-time users of Oncotech's tests precisely because they found them to be useful in treating cancer patients, and many positive, independent, peer-reviewed studies published in esteemed medical journals attested to their predictive accuracy.

There is just one more point (though many other exist) I'll mention here. It relates to Dr. Nagourney's representation of the "Medicare controversy." I would excuse Dr. Nagourney's taking a bit of self-serving liberty with the facts if, in seeking to inflate his own contribution, he did not attempt to undermine my reputation by misstating my position in the matter. Dr. Nagourney paints his opposition to Medicare reimbursement for these tests (something thousands of Medicare patients had wished for over the years) as being based on scientific and ethical principle.

In point of fact, Dr. Nagourney was opposed for reasons of financial self-interest. He feared approval at a reimbursement rate to his lab at a level below what he already was charging Medicare patients as a non-covered service. He sought to prevent all cancer patients from receiving Medicare coverage for not only Oncotech's services but also for services provided by laboratories in competition with him which used the same cell death-based technologies used in his own laboratory. If he couldn't make a go of it at levels of reimbursement provided by Medicare, he sought (unsuccessfully, it turned out, contrary to the false impression given in his book) to prevent other laboratories from offering services which would be covered by Medicare, to the detriment of cancer patients who could benefit from these services, but couldn't afford to pay the full cost of these tests out of pocket, as in the case of his own clientele.

In any case, the Medicare issue isn't a matter of debate. Verbatim transcripts from the relevant meetings clearly show that my role and my statements were not as Dr. Nagourney portrays them. I argued in favor of Medicare patients, with proven scientific facts - not in favor of Oncotech, of which I was no longer a part and which was, in fact, a competitor to my own personalized chemotherapy testing lab.

I am in the process of preparing a point by point rebuttal of many other historical liberties which appear in Dr. Nagourney's book. These will be available on my website as soon as I am able to complete them (I am a medical oncologist with an active laboratory-based practice):

[...]
This could have been an excellent book. Much of what appears in it is, indeed, excellent. Sadly, egregious inaccuracies in some areas will force the reader to ask the question, "Which portions of this book can I believe and which portions can I not?" It didn't have to be this way.

- Larry Weisenthal, MD
[...]