You’re not going about this in good faith
It’s not ever personal when it’s about science. I’m not saying you are like them.
The comparison to BMT is because in the moment, if you were not for it, you were a cretin. The magazine covers, the media stories, everything. Everybody decided that it was the way to cure people. The lawsuits against the insurers, the way people that questioned it got treated.
Let’s focus on the nature of the debate. If it is true that it decreases toxicity in a meaningful way, then it means those that don’t use it are causing undue toxicity. Those that use it are safer.
My review of the evidence, my own experience and after discussion with many colleagues is that 1) with modern technique and planning my toxicity rate is nowhere near the control arm toxicity rate 2) it’s expensive to the system (if not individual patients) 3) the review of the literature shows statistical chicanery 4) every author is getting large amounts of money. Know the proctors? You’d be fascinated to know just how much they make per hour 5) modern results (such as PACE B) have rates of toxicity nowhere near the control arm.
I can’t wait for that institution to publish their results. And others when they actually review their cases. At least the debate can be much more thorough.
Fiducials? Don’t use em. I have cbct and use it like I use MSG. On everything