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.
I think those patients that Dr. Liau mentioned are part of the 17 that didn't cross over (not part of the 18 censors that crossed over and received DCVax after pseudoprogression or whose time of progression was not well established in order to be included in the 64 rGBM arm). And most of them didn't cross over because they very sick or died without crossing over.
I never said or implied they could detect psPD in the 99 arm and not in the 232 arm. What I said is that in the 99 patients arm, all patients that were pseudo progressors, that were additionally thought to be progressors and, as consequence of that, crossed over (and started to recieve DCVax L) had to be censored not only for PFS, but also for OS. And that is because they were not SOC-only patients anymore, they started receiving DCVax from pseudoprogression, so their OS could not be used for the purpose of comparing against SOC after that. On the other hand, that is not the case for the 232 patients arm, because anyway they were receiving DCVax from the beginning. So for the case of this arm, they needed to be censored for PFS, but not for OS.
The whole explanation is in my answer to Ex. Post 677821
I missed that. Could you link to his post? Thanks.
Thanks a lot.
Thanks Flipper, something I didn't see mentioned is the proportion of MGMT Methylated vs. MGMT Unmethylated patients and if that was taken into account for randomization. That clearly affects the results. I also didn't see anything regarding IDH-1 Mutant vs. Wildtype. Did you or anyone see anything about that and if any other aspects like age, KPS, etc. were taken into account for randomization?
Thank you very much for saving us. I can clearly see you are an expert. How couldn't we see that before. Unfortunately I can´t sell my shares Today, will do it first time Monday. I hope I can sell them before too much people read your analysis. Thank you savior.
Thanks a lot Flipper!!
Thanks a lot TTsr!!
Thanks a lot Hoff!!
Hello Hoff!! Nice to see you. Could you explain me and any other interested parties exactly what is this (in more detail)? Thanks in advance.
Dstock07734, no, I'm not from Germany. Sorry, I don't know the answer to your question.
Thanks a lot Dr Bala!!
Thanks a lot for your words Bio!!
Thank you very much for your words Marzan!! Appreciate them.
You can think whatever you want. I can understand that for you that behavior would be completely normal, because of the way you act.
Hyperopia, I totally agree with you. I continue being positive about the science, haven't sold a single share and for now will keep them (I don't know for how long). But I am really disappointed with this management, mainly because of this aspect you mention. We, longtime shareholders, don't get the respect we deserve, to say the least.
I think your confusion may come from mixing up short sale volume with short interest. Below you will find an explanation of the difference and why they can be normally confusing:
https://www.tradersmagazine.com/departments/equities/understanding-short-sale-activity/
https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/short-interest#:~:text=The%20short%20interest%20data%20is,sales%20on%20individual%20trade%20dates.
Since this data also comes from FINRA, what gives? The daily short selling volume is misleading because market makers and principal trading firms report a large number of trades as short sales in positions that they quickly cover. For market makers with a customer order to sell, they will temporarily sell short (which gets published to the tape as a media transaction for public dissemination) and then immediately buy from their customer in a non-media transaction that is not publicly disseminated to avoid double counting share volumes. SEC guidance also mandates that almost all principal trading firms that provide liquidity at multiple price levels, or arbitrage international securities, must mark orders they enter as short, even though those firms might also have strategies that tend to flatten by end of day. Since the trade reporting process for market makers and principal trades makes the Daily Short Volume easily misleading, we do not display it on www.otcmarkets.com.
What Short Interest Is Not
In addition to short interest data, FINRA also publishes Short Sale Volume Data. The Daily Short Sale Volume data provides aggregated volume by security for all off-exchange short sale trades. This data excludes any trading activity that is not publicly disseminated and is not consolidated with exchange data.
Some market participants mistakenly conclude that the bi-monthly short interest data is understated because the Short Sale Volume Daily File reflects volume that is much larger than the positions reported as short interest. However, short interest position data does not—and is not intended to—equate to the daily short sale volume data posted on FINRA’s website.
The short interest data is just a snapshot that reflects short positions held by brokerage firms at a specific moment in time on two discrete days each month. The Short Sale Volume Daily File reflects the aggregate volume of trades within certain parameters executed as short sales on individual trade dates. Therefore, while the two data sets are related in that short sale volume activity may ultimately result in a reportable short interest position, they are not the same.
Investors may establish short positions in a security that continue to exist for varying lengths of time, which can result in a short position being represented in one of the data sets but not the other. For example, an investor may sell a security short and purchase shares to close the position on the same trade date. That position would not appear in the short interest data, though the short sale transaction would appear on the Short Sale Volume Daily File.
On the other hand, an investor may hold a short position open for days or weeks, perhaps as a hedge against another position. While the short sale transaction that established that short position would appear in the Short Sale Volume Daily File only on the date the short sale transaction occurred, the short position would continue to be reflected in the short interest data for as long as the position remained open.
Excellent post. Agree 100%.
OncoJock, thanks for your answer and sorry for my comment accusing you. My mistake :)
Biosectinvestor, it is because aproximately $76.3 million of warrant liability was reclassified from liabilities to equity after the AS increase, as explained in section 3. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies of the 10-Q.
Just checking it.
10Q out.
Agree 100% kabunushi
Thanks a lot pqr for your words and for all you do for us also. Best regards.
Whatever they saw was not an issue with DCVax, because the plan for the trial was to have 232 patients randomized to DCVax and 116 to placebo and it ended with the same 232 randomized to DCVax and only 99 to placebo. So the 17 not recruited where taken out of the placebo arm. Actually what they did was send all the last patients to DCVax. Opposite to what you are trying to infer, it is a very positive sign because they accelerated DCVax recruitment and didn't recruit all placebo patients. And maybe, just maybe, the reason is that the external control arms where starting to be seen as an option with the crossover and pseudoprogression issues that were leaving the trial without a placebo arm, so they didn't want to continue sending patients to placebo, and decided to send all of them to a treatment that was clearly working.
*English is not my native language.
Excellent work Hoffmann. Thank you, very much!!!
I wasn't able to watch the video and now it is not available anymore for what I see.
You're very welcome NotSure2.
No, JAMA didn't give details about that. I think we will get those details in the future.
NotSure2. I think they are not related (I tried to find a link between the two 17 numbers because I don't believe to much in coincidences, but didn't find it). The 17 Doc Logic is talking about are patients that were supposed to be enrolled in the trial, but were not finally enrolled:
348 (initially supposed to be enrolled) - 331 (finally enrolled) = 17
And the good news is that the 17 not enrolled were taken out of the initial placebo arm and not of the treatment arm:
Number of patients in intial trial design:
Placebo: 116 (1/3 of patients)
Treatment Arm: 232 (2/3 of patients)
Total: 348
Final number of patients:
Placebo: 99
Treatment Arm: 232
Total: 331
61 days.
In case this kind of posts do anything to the stock, it is not support, just harm.