Quick note, re: DiPALS report . . . :

Even though implanting but not activating the DPS may be a mistake, such trial might well be scientific . . . I say I would not have approved because a need to compensate for the 'short-circuit' effect of the probe may exist. Yet I remain uncertain as to whether such would matter. It might not. The issue may be unknown . . . unknown from my perspective certainly - maybe someone knew. However, the issue might be moot . . . variance from 'norm' in pilot samples in ALS is not well study to the best of my knowledge and belief. Are there any researchers who would doubt variance in pilot samples is large in ALS, more likely larger in ALS than many other diseases? Most would have to admit substantial variance in pilot samples is likely but there is very little discussion of sample variance in the recent papers. The high variance may partially explain the results the DiPALS writing group reports. Its 20-20 hindsight though.

How difficult would disturbing an ALS clinical study be . . . How frail is the effect being exploited in the DPS treatment?