I am not a medical student; I don't need to be. I can read a medical journal. I am an engineer with a background in research science, if that matters.
You can read here
http://www.tdtinc.com/t_prod_blood.html for the salient representations made about GCC vs. CEA. I discovered this immediately in Feb. 2003, when it was first announced, as that was when my friend needed help with colon cancer.
My friend's very reputable oncologist ("Dr. X") acted as if GCC didn't exist, upon my inquiry in early 2003, and I did not want to aggravate X by debating it. X used CEA continually. My friend's regimen was world-class, except for my personal antipathy for CEA. My friend, who was Stage III, meanwhile, seems to be cured.
In 2003, I spoke numerous times with the director of marketing at TDT, Andrew Boyce. He reiterated the miraculous claims of GCC, but curiously explained any lack of aggressive marketing: "Unnecessary; the product will sell itself," he said. There was never any FDA approval, although that did not concern me; I understand such approval is a protracted process. Patients have always had to pay for the test out-of-pocket; $500 US; no Medicare reimbursement, as still stated on the TDT website.
My colleagues in 2003 considered the TDT product to be a scam. I was more favorably impressed. One reason why was that, in 2003, my internet searches revealed promising British descriptions of GCC, which were not of TDT origin. I was the only one pursuing research on the matter.
My friend never took the test, and I have no feedback at all about its efficacy.
Now, I notice, TDT does not answer the phone, and does not return phone calls. Andrew Boyce's extension issues a recording that he is no longer with the company. All calls go into voice mail. If I get a call back, I'll let you know.
Assuming TDT is out of business, having touted a miraculous product over the previous 5 years, implies, but does not conclusively prove, that GCC is a scam. There are many causes of business failure. I am still optimistic, and was hoping for some corroboration in this forum on the efficacy of GCC and its superiority to CEA.
Curiously, I have never read any article deriding GCC as a hoax, either. In my personal experience, hoaxes of such magnitude should draw fire from reputable critics.
There is another point, legally referred to as "detrimental reliance." My conversations with Boyce indicated that his company wanted to sell the product as some sort of curiosity, while avoiding detrimental reliance. The real value of any product, however, exists in its ability to be relied upon. That TDT seemed to avoid detrimental reliance is a negative.
I'll elaborate on this a bit more. Boyce was there to sell his test to private individuals for $500, but he did not want anyone to forsake chemotherapy because his test indicated "all clear." That could cause death, if someone who might be cured relied, instead, on a snake oil test that said there was no need for chemotherapy, because of a test indicating absence of cancer in the body.
My friend might not have needed chemotherapy at all, according to a different oncologist, "Dr. Y." There was a 50-50 chance, according to Y, that cancer was completely removed from my friend's body, upon resection of the colon.
So if the GCC test is really as accurate and sensitive as TDT claims, I would surmise that it could be relied upon to AVOID chemotherapy, which is no picnic.
I liken modern chemotherapy to "carpet bombing" of the insides of the human body. 50 years from now, it will be outdated by far more precise methods, and TESTING (i.e, surveillance) hopefully, that might eliminate the need for over-use of treatment, altogether.
