clinical

Lots of testing and clinical trials for drugs.

Why jump through all our FDA clinical trial hurdles if there's no promise of a big payout at the end?

The clinical trials will be small in the beginning, and thus the small-n studies will not have much statistical power.

This doesn't sound like a serious clinical trial, it sounds like a hack performed by some back-alley doc in a dystopic science fiction story...

I run a hospital laboratory in Seattle, and I am a clinical pathologist.

I was going to respond to a few of the comments here, but then I realized I was going to say pretty much the same to all of them, so here goes:I've got clinical depression.

Only human beings have science labs and clinical research studies to come up with new defenses against the thoughtless, largely immobile threats from other living things.

It's an entirely different method of treatment, which means all the clinical knowledge doctors currently have is invalid, and has to be relearned.

Thus,they need to do a clinical validation that their results are meaningful, in addition to an analytical validation to prove that they're accurate.

The interviewed expert has very good credentials and clinical experience to be talking about what he is talking about, and his warnings should be taken seriously.

For example, adaptive clinical trials have been known to be theoretically superior to the Phase I/II/III design for 15 years, yet are still in limbo[1] at the FDA; their proponents are still banned from trying them out.