Koman, I respect your viewpoint as well. I'm on my iPhone so I can't copy portions of you post to reply to.
Here's the thing that I see that I'm probably not explaining well. (I'm cursed sometimes where others have a hard time following what I mean to say). If PFS is bad, then I suggested that non-progressor patients in the treatment arm were removed (AVII's theory). That would cause the vaccine group to have a deflated PFS. So if the placebo group were 15 Months; the vaccine group might be 15 months (or less; possibly much less if the vaccine is causing psPD). But then the difference would be made and more on OS. A placebo cohort even with a high median PFD will only go to to live so long. That groups OS might be 24 -25 months (vaccine only slightly lifts it from the typical 22 months). But the vaccine cohort median OS might be 30 -40 months. The clincher is if the early crossover and restart of injection schedule would affect the patients who were already on treatment to improve. We have no idea if it's affecting that. If it's not a placebo it may be.
As for this as an investment, I sold out of most of my shares. I'm not a long per say. I don't like the idea that we have to guess what is going on. I don't do faith investment for the most part. I agree with Iclight and Austin that it makes more sense for me to invest with management I trust. The subject of GBM is still one that interest me. And AVII posting that panel, made me weigh in. I read a bunch of the scientist research so it's very easy for a layman like me to follow. If it works I do want patients to get the vaccine if it's useful. The same way as I want a CMV vaccine out of Duke to get to patients. And I do think that the current study should be using imaging techniques that match with the immunotherapy times. Because I still believe in the possibility of DCVax-L, if the iRANO rules turn fair, I did roll some money into far out calls, but only because it's been hard for me personally to let go completely. If the science fails and they expire worthless I knew my risk. That said, I will never be the type of investor that will tell you to stop sharing your doubts or opinions. Prados stated that sometimes they think they're testing something that should work (personal biases) and it turns out that there are better studies for the patients to be in. Things should be questioned, people are investing much more than money. If there are red flags here then patients have a right to know to if they read these boards. Without the clinical testing outcome, again in a fair fashion, we won't know if it helps on PFS or not. And so I'm advocating that this study gets the testing right so we know once and for all if useful at delaying recurrence. I could care less about it from an investment standpoint. Hope that helps.
