Priyamvada Natarajan Quotes

I have an obligation to use what I know to try to bring real, usable medical science to every doctor and bedside and patient.

We are a research center and treatment facility all under one roof.

I am a medical scientist, not a practical physician. I think it's very upfront. I am a doctor. I have long experience with heart disease.

I do not believe that Congress or the Administration should prohibit the medical community from pursuing a promising avenue of research that may improve the lives of millions of Americans.

When you immerse yourself in medicine you realise that hope is not absolute. It's not that simple.

We need to bridge the gap between the medical libraries and the hospital rooms; take the information out there already, add to it, focus it, harness it - and bring it to the patient who was just diagnosed today.

There are so many things that go into a surgical study.

Computerized medical records will enable statistical analysis to be used to determine which treatments are most effective.

If you put me in charge of the medical research budget, I would cancel all primary research, I would cancel all new trials, for just one year, and I would spend the money exclusively on making sure that we make the best possible use of the clinical evidence that we already have.

I think it's a very valuable thing for a doctor to learn how to do research, to learn how to approach research, something there isn't time to teach them in medical school. They don't really learn how to approach a problem, and yet diagnosis is a problem; and I think that year spent in research is extremely valuable to them.

I am a medical scientist, not a practical physician.

The old ethic for medicine [regarding new drugs] used to be: Is it safe and what are the risks? That is no longer adequate. Now people ask, "What goal are we reaching for?

If we can actually decrease the failure rate from nine out of 10 drugs failing in clinical trials and instead have seven out of 10 instead failing, that is a major victory for drug discovery and for people having better therapy.

As medical data has such power to deliver better understanding of disease and better patient outcomes, it is important we find the best way of sharing it.

I can't comment on the internal decision-making at other companies, but RVT-101 has the potential to be a very valuable product in the treatment of Alzheimer's, which is a huge unmet medical need.

While I am prepared to look at all options and to think 'outside the box' for effective treatments, I rightly resisted efforts to provide an unproven drug on demand to the American public.

If we can validate our scientific bets in the clinic, if we can bring valuable new treatments to patients that need them, that will be our ultimate measure of success.

Americans broadly consent to funding clinical research because they believe in the promise of medical research. But people support scientific work only if they trust that it serves societal interests, respects patient dignity and operates with guardrails.

Either it is true that a medicine works or it isn't. It cannot be false in the ordinary sense but true in some alternative sense. If a therapy or treatment is anything more than a placebo, properly conducted double-blind trials, statistically analyzed, will eventually bring it through with flying colours. Many candidates for recognition as orthodox medicines fail the test and are summarily dropped. The alternative label should not (though, alas, it does) provide immunity from the same fate.

We have known about the placebo effect for many years. This is a remarkable effect - placebo can cure 30 percent in many cases.

The history of using mice to stand in for humans in medical experiments is replete with failures.

It is false to suggest that medical breakthroughs come only through government research.

In the collecting of evidence upon any medical subject, there are but three sources from which we can hope to obtain it: viz. from observation of the living subject; from examination of the dead; and from experiments upon living animals.

With the right policies and regulations, the opportunities for American medical advancement and scientific innovation are boundless.

In order for America to remain the leader in medical innovation, we must reduce costs, ease regulatory burdens, and increase the efficacy of producing new treatments and cures here in the U.S.