Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Yes to all of those. But why a slower decline in deaths than most other countries?
Highest daily deaths in all of Europe for the last 10 days or so.
There are several factors that suggest ongoing systemic deficencies, beyond the inadequate early response.
"Italy Finally Starts Mass Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine"
This article was some 6 weeks ago.
This 30% rise in two days appears qualitatively different to what we have seen many times before, when the price is briefly inflated due to a putative catalyst or no catalyst at all, only to go back to the starting point 36 or 48 hrs later.
In other words, a short term price manipulation, or just clever swing trading.
Yesterday's rise consolidated on Monday's gains.
Though even a 5m volume obviously doesn't amount to a lot of money.
I'm inclined to think that there may be an element of substance underlying this move, and I've speculated previously as to what that might be.
Time will tell.
Merck is developing a placebo for Covid which will cost $250,000.
Due to be fast tracked to approval next month.
Drowned in a sea of dilution predictions.
"Doctors Rate Hydroxychloroquine Most Effective Therapy for Coronavirus Infection"
https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/fda-issued-emergency-authorization-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19-patients-usa
Ososilver.
Yes, Captain, but we are not talking about a new unapproved untried drug with an unknown safety profile.
We are talking about about the possible re-purposing of a dirt cheap drug that has been around for 40yrs in approved use, and is a known entity from a safety point of view.
From the NCBI article:-
I know very little about Ivermectin, other than it's an already approved anti-parisitic, used for scabies and rosacea, and head lice, and many third world parasitic diseases.
In vitro studies have shown it to be effective against Covid, but more human studies for Covid are ideally required.
There are probably many already approved drugs that can exert anti-viral effect on this virus.
At a quick glance, it appears to be getting similar derogatory reporting in the West to hydroxychloroquine.
This is an example:-
At least equal volume to this time yesterday.
Not silly money, imo...
Yes, I've been watching the Sermo surveys for some time.
I think I was first to refer to them.
You would hope that physicians around the world could report their experiences anonymously, without fear or favor.
But I wonder if that is truly the case. Perhaps less than it was a month ago.
And Italy and Spain only started widespread use of HC when their deathrate was out of control.
Its use coincides with the subsequent decline in mortality!
And the point about HC is that it is most effective for mild to moderate cases, where viral load is likely lower.
Once a patient gets to the ARD stage, HC won't help.
That's when you need to use Tocilizumab!
Which Sermo also report on, but its use gets virtually no mention in any media anywhere in the world. Why?
I have no doubt it is saving lives of critically ill patients, where it is in use.
The poorer, less developed parts of the world, or those outside the Western world are largely relying on HC, because they haven't got anything else.
It is in wide usage in India. But then you get crazy articles criticising India for using it, and at the same time criticising India for restricting its export.
UAE are importing it from India, I know that much.
And India are also using it as a preventative for health workers and other other hig risk groups.
Pakistan is using it, and has enough stock to be exporting to many other countries:-
Thanks.
Well, I wouldn't put it quite that way.
But looking at NY, if you compare infections and deaths in the Bronx with those in Manhattan, then yes, there is an obvious link with population density (and poverty) and high Covid rates.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/nyregion/coronavirus-deaths-nyc.html
Similar picture elsewhere:-
Yep, it's become a political football, and a source of mucho info and mucho more counterinfo.
But it's in use in most of the world, with a few countries being notable exceptions. Curiously enough, those few are the ones with highest deaths to cases...
And nobody is making any money from it.
I mean, what's the point of having a pandemic, if you can't monetize it?
Might as well not have had it in the first place.
HB.
Are we perhaps beginning to know why Advent want to employ dozens more staff right now, when UK Specials alone won't need that many..?
Ok. So why the price hike yesterday?
Is it just the usual manipulation of running it up one day, and running it back down the next?
Such as we saw right after the ASM.
It's proved me wrong, because I was convinced that this was nailed down to 0.17 for the time being.
But, I want to know why I was wrong.
This just doesn't have the feel of one of those overnight manipulations, though it might yet be one.
And the hike is just too big to be general market afterglow from a lessening of Covid rates and vaccine developments.
I'm reckoning a specific Covid-related business opportunity might have come their way.
MRNA's vaccine appears frontrunner in US, while University of Oxford's “ChAdOx1 nCoV-19” (with Cognate on board) appears frontrunner in UK and possibly wider.
Just when it's becoming clear that the virus is beginning to fizzle out naturally...
Theoretically perhaps.
But in reality, I think it'll be 28.2 - 28.4%.
IMO, Top 100 median will reach and probably surpass 72 months.
So if I'm correct, that would be a minimum of 51 patients surviving for 6 yrs.
Actually, in investment terms, NWBO could be a hedge against global uncertainty and volatile markets.
Come what may, we will stick resolutely at 0.17 (at least until topline!).
Thanks.
I think we can safely say OS36 of 28.2% won't deviate downwards, and maybe it will go up a very tiny smidge.
Psst. Don't tell anybody, but stick any spare cash in a gold tracker. JMO!
CT. Look at the slide on Senti's post:-
'Last patient was enrolled in November 2015.'
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155681462
We've long known that last recruitment (randomisation) wasn't until the November.
Should we expect a datalock announcement?
Hi Senti.
Yes, I'd never really clocked this slide before.
If the data collection was done back in Oct, then the slide is inaccurate, because the last patients were enrolled (randomised?) in Nov '15, so how could all patients have reached 36-month follow-up?
If 'all patients have reached 36 months follow up', means that all patients 3yr data are included in the 28.2% OS36, it means that figure is pretty well set in stone.
Not impossible, but I think most of us previously thought that there was some lag, and that the figures only went up to maybe some point in October, so might be subject to a bit of subsequent updating for the last few entrants.
If the 28.2% figure is a final one, then the meth / unmeth OS36 will also be final at 49.1% meth and 14.3% unmeth.
So won't get better (or worse).
Though Top 100 median would definitely continue to change (upwards, I suggest) as we moved on in time from the SNO readout.
That slide also represents the last public reference to PFS, I believe..
(Just sayin'..)
How could he have been clearly accurate in a way that the typical audience of this show could comprehend correctly?
(I do agree his language was sloppy at best, misleading at worst.)
The Top 100 is an awful metric in the first place, imo.
You should only be allowed to quote it, if you give the bottom 100 at the same time. And who is going to do that?
Does that show actually have any impact in terms of getting new investors on board? I doubt it.
It gives us something to debate about, I suppose.
Be interesting what he says if he goes back on the show after topline.
Is that permitted in the Dept. of Motor Vehicles?
At least you spared us the pic.
The trouble is Sukus, getting my approval isn't worth a bean and won't move the dial at all, unless it's backwards!
If you were looking at OS60, you really have to to look at cross-trial comparisons, rather than with SOC.
And Stupp did 9.8% for his pivotal trial treatment arm (which is now SOC). Which was suspiciously good for the time.
And when, a few years later, that was the control arm in Optune EF-14, it only did 5%.
Somehow, the Optune treatment arm 'achieved' 13%.
You really can't compare our trial result with typical OS60 'in the real world', because in the real world, patients tend to be older and sicker. Weak immune systems, poor blood counts, older, comorbidities etc etc.
So you won't hear me talk about 400% improvements.
But notwithstanding the above, my calculated guess for L treatment OS60 of 20-21%, if born out, would be better than anything else previously, and I'd be amazed if any current trials like the Inovio one could match that. Not that we will find out, because they will end their trial long before they get that far.
Of course, if L treatment returns 20% or better for OS60 and it is accompanied by perfect safety and a decent maintenance of Q of L, then it should be approved, despite the actual trial design shortcomings.
That would be double the pivotal Stupp figure and 50% better than the Optune figure.
But should and will are not always the same thing.
Survival extension along with Q of L (living longer and / or better) are the only outcomes that matter to a patient.
And regulators should make decisions in accordance with that.
If there any fair and objective regulators out there, who actually believe in the importance of patient-centred, real world outcomes, then things would look good.
JMO.
If TLD is as good as we hope, I will give them my approval immediately.
No promise beyond that...
I thought Ed Sullivan died some time ago.
Is he still drawing a paycheck?
Well hopefully it will be fully ramped when it gets a licence, Tilt..
So, taken from diagnosis or surgery, 82 / 70 is just your guess, right, for DCVax trial (a double blind P3) whole population OS12?
Seeing as it's not a known figure.
And where do you place median Day 0 in the Inovio trial, in relation to diagnosis? It's probably between 4 and 8 weeks, imo.
As to maintenance TMZ in the Inovio trial, you're correct on unmeth not getting it.
But for meth; patients get it, if 'clinically indicated'. So that's probably most of them. Not that that necessarily offers an advantage over not getting it.
And though several of us have already scrutinised it, here is the link for the Inovio trial CT listing, to make it simple for others to look at it.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03491683?term=inovio&cond=glioblastoma&draw=2&rank=1
Yes indeed. You would have to look beyond the inclusion / exclusion criteria, and closely examine actual patient make-up, which we cannot do.
What is the mean age of these 52 patients?
How many had a total resection? (Only small amount of residual tumor allowed.)
What was the actual mean KPS?
Do they have a 50 / 50 gender split? Men do worse in GBM (and Covid-19!)
Do they have more than 5% with IDH mutation?
These are effectively hand-picked, good bet patients, receiving best attention.
Not blaming them. It's what everybody does.
The other thing worth noting is that they could have, but didn't, quote PFS12.
So you might have 85% alive at a year, but how many of those are progression-free?
We can see from their blurb that 25% of unmeth had already progressed by 6 months, though 84.4% were still alive at 12 months. My guess would be that anything between 40 and 70% of the unmeth patients had progressed by the 1yr mark.
If the PFS12 had remained impressive, they would have told us what that figure was, and they didn't!
They stated themselves that:-
Hey, what's this flirting with the 0.16's all about?
We need to get back to the 0.17's, which is what we're used to.
Just a line from the Novavax site:-