Lack of adoption of EGDT does not reflect a complacency borne of inertia. Rather, the critical care community has judged EGDT to be insufficiently validated. Skepticism arises from the single-center nature of the only positive, prospective trial; uncertainty regarding the individual components of a complex, bundled protocol; and concern about the appropriateness of drawing general inferences from an unusual subject pool. The equipoise found among intensivists is reflected in the three large, ongoing, multicenter trials seeking to confirm or refute the original EGDT trial results. These include the Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) trial (1,600 subjects), the Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) trial centered in Pittsburgh (1,935 subjects), and the Protocolised Management of Sepsis (ProMISe) trial in the United Kingdom (1,260 subjects). The investigators, the hundred or so institutional review boards, and the subjects choosing to consent for these studies surely are not taking lightly their responsibilities to balance risks and benefits. Further study is warranted because EGDT may yet be proved to be life saving. Meanwhile, however, it is premature to widely promulgate this protocol based on fragile evidence.