Tic Toc smile and wave.., page-55

Mate, I'm beginning to think you really are a bit daft. You asked for a specific response to the following question:
"Can you show me where they stats that and also literature as to what would the advantage be?"

In that question, 'they' referred to Philips, hence the Philips website reference (luckily I didn't have to go 2 decades back to find it). The second site was simply defining the difference between cTnT and cTnI and what advantage there may be. Again, from your initial question.

From what I can see, both markers can be used to determine if an MI has been experienced (with slightly varying levels of accuracy). Both T & I markers reach 100% specificity at about 6hrs post myocardial necrosis onset. For balance, some things that don't support my theory(s) cTnT has a longer presentation period post MI (appx 2 weeks as opposed to appx 1 for cTnI), and specificity levels at onset show cTnI can range from 25% to 65%, where cTnI typically presents at <45% giving (at lest in my mind) a slight edge to cTnT. You probably already know this based on your 1999 research... It should also be noted that all of the above statistics (as per your research from the '90's) are based on conventional Troponin assays. This is not representative of later generation high-sensitivity arrays which improve accuracy levels (my understanding).

Most of the facts above can be verified at the following site (same as your 1999/2000 reference, so assume it's acceptable? Just 2010 as opposed to the '90s) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2941782/

If I'm being completely transparent, having read extensively on this after having a bit of personal experience in MI's (not as a medical official), I'd be comfortable with either marker used to determine my status if it meant early diagnosis. And yes, I'd accept treatment for a false positive, although would seriously not be pleased with incurring the cost if a more accurate result could have been determined at diagnosis.

In reply to your juvenile response, yes, I always look for research that supports my theory, however, I typically don't form an initial theory without having done research to actually come to a position. That being said, looking for research to support my theory doesn't mean I discard information that doesn't. It helps me evolve my theory and come to a conclusion. Quite sure this is lost on you, but that's how I approach these things.

Just because you don't like the answer when it doesn't support your theory really shouldn't cause you to be upset little fella. Time to put on your big boy (or girl) pants and accept what's in black and white. You just didn't do the research. simples.

DYOR, IMHO, S2SD, blah blah, blah....