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.
Continues to be firing on all cylinders
What I've read about LEAPS it's a platform, the kind where you can specify different payloads. So in theory... you could put counter agents to the spike protein (apparently while also modulating cytokine storm)
Right there with you, haven't changed a thing, just waiting patiently
Interesting
"What, this whole time we've really been facing a food contaminant that has messed up our intestinal flora and fauna" ?
( pause )
Never let a deadline stand in the way of typical delay :)
Fosco likes April for data
I like July
I was poking him in the ribs with a smiley face
July :)
Yep, just hangin' out
Unfortunately it seems my prediction that the vaccines aren't going to cut it is proving out
So, we should be good to go still. Waiting for more update news.
In theory you can drop out of LTFU for Secondary Measures
The primary measure, all the researches have to do is check death certificates
Sry, I wasn't watching. Still waiting for more news.
Usually it is some circuit breaker thing, too big a move too fast.
Did we figure it out ?
I've been watching a few
Sometimes there is a quick buy, sometimes there is wait for FDA, and sometimes there is wait to see how it goes in the market.
Sometimes there is a new mega monster biopharma
Sky is the limit, that still seems low ( over further 3 years )
Sarcasm
...like that's ever been right before...
Hey, fair is fair ;)
These so called vaccines do not claim to halt transmission like a real vaccine
They only reduce impact, from what I've been reading
So everyone still needs tested indefinitely
It could be a while before everybody wakes up to that fact.
Something the other day, somebody came up with a "tamiflu-like" medicine for this, THAT seems to work well
My mom... for that matter...
About 2 weeks before the first vent opened up we were camping at Spirit Lake. My mom made us leave at about 11:00PM, we were all kinda pissed.
Then, a couple weeks later it was like "oh..."
Last couple weeks now, her spidey senses are going off again, everywhere.
re: Volcanoes
Watch this guy, DutchSinse on youtube
He watches the stuff so much he has a feel for it, not quite "wrong".
At least you get a good feel what's going on everywhere.
Volcanoes recently are kind of interesting, last couple weeks
I totally get it
But now, what was the reason for the arbitration in the first place...
It could be simply they weren't enrolling enough
or it could be they weren't enrolling enough because the survival was so high in all groups because they enrolled wrong and didn't feel like enrolling more
We don't EXACTLY know what went down.
We have a superficial story that itself was not ever explicitly told.
The only gotcha is that we had the "there are not as many events as expected" and increased enrollment.
Maybe due to dramatic effectiveness, sure.
Maybe due to some kind of delay in all that mess and the possibility "some or all" may not be included from that set.
etc.,
Dunno. All I know is, it is possible to leverage this as well as some leeway in SOC expectation say 5% maybe as much as 9% due to the "small sample size" compared to SEER data.
Looking for all possible additives (or subtractives, depending on the view there)
The "returning" of these, was that they were at one time pulled from the CVM site in the monthly enrollment, and later came back, after arb.
( to be sure, afaik, I was the first to project based on the monthlies and noting how dramatic a difference it makes to do that. The summary "resurrection" sheet I sent you came up after it no longer carried much significance, the simple math was enough coarse grained yearly, as it was already beyond conservative in expectations vs. the same thing monthly )
Point being, this is something I lived through, getting and updating the monthly enrollment.
It is just a suggestion
Personally, once you're injected you should be tracked.
The suggestion again being if the enrollment included types that should have been excluded, and it was interesting that they were dropped from the enrollment data and came back.
That could also be explained if the CRO was unable or unwilling to provide any data at all during or after the arbitration.
If their screw up was however improper enrollment... Then for those the OAS expectation in year 1 could be as high as 98%, and in year 3 as high as 78%.
Well, you have to go back and look at the monthly enrollment, and indeed there is something of a wave.
That being said, I am referring to "there are not as many events as expected" by Geert and the increase in enrollment to 928 because of that.
I am suggesting it is remotely plausible that the initial CRO enrolled patients with high survivability ( base of the tongue ) in error since those are to be excluded.
That would produce "fewer events than expected" up to the point where "hey, we better enroll more patients"
This could also explain some skew in the expectations in various spreadsheets.
"There should have been this many by this time according to SEER data..." but it is way, way, out of whack. And it is only superficially that it looks like "it must be due to effectiveness". If you look deeper, as a couple of us have now, there is certainly more to it than merely it works. Something else is afoot, some extra factor of survivability.
That's all I'm saying. It is one possible scenario, however remote.
The only plausible case I can make is the initial CRO screw up leading to about a 2 year delay, and that population being accidentally high survivability, all of them.
This could explain why rate of events corrected upon new mass enrollment.
The data could look POSITIVE right now out here, but be FALSE POSITIVE upon review.
For whatever reason, I FEEL like that is more likely than that we have escaped beyond 9% in SOC standard survival expectations due to our relatively small sample size of 800 compared to SEER data at 200,000+
Meanwhile, it is more likely than either of those two options that something dramatically effective is taking place.
We only know what we know.
If it has not been clear recently, I am always very pessimistic until forced to be positive on this. And I am forced to be positive. None of the negative options seem much plausible.
The best math and figuring of 5-6 people who play with hard data have all concluded that there is a signal of effectiveness. Most seem to agree is it as per Fosco's suggestion.
I think it will still be stunning if we make 11.25% and that's about as low as I can FORCE the data to be biased pessimistically.
( Unless something really weird has taken place nobody could imagine )
To be sure, 47% would be the setting for 3 year SOC in that one.
30-40% "improvement" is the MEASURED or projected at 3.5 year.
Thank you for grinding through this analysis independently.
That makes about 5 or 6 publicly acknowledged to one degree or another.
It is quite a chore.
Yeah, I can imagine some fluke up to 9% and I would be very comfortable with 5%
28%... some sort of gross error in "randomized entry"
Something like "Oops, all the SOC had HPV related base of the tongue cancer"
That being said, we never learned the exact details of the "screw-up" of the initial CRO.
Actually...
The Scientific Method gets refined over time.
I wouldn't go reinventing that just yet
I remember reading an article about placebo vs. cancer
It does not have the typically up to 7% effect vs. cancer when deployed in that context.
Again, totally wrong to use placebo in this trial to begin with.
I totally get it, I work with a lot of counter-intuitive data
It is yet important to run 'em all to ground
You'd think, for example, someone who overdrafts their bank account every single month must be a "bad" customer...
20% of those make 80% of the fees for the banks. They have titles like "neurosurgeon", "attorney at law", etc., and it is simply a convenience for them to be able to do that. They are "busy right now" doing something important.
I'll fiddle with it some more, I very strongly suspect there is another "correct" solution at 11.25%
...keeping in mind 10% is a very high bar already, and 11% is colloquially speaking, perhaps bordering on technically speaking; "exponentially higher".
A 23% would be stunning
Maybe the way to account for that is if it works, it keeps working; and I am being overly pessimistic for that reason vs. kaplan meier.
Wow
And yes, your interpretation of % Responding is just fine.
Here is something that can extend your ski season, might have to run over to Rainier and say hi to the Marmots up there
Oh, dude... you have got to learn the Charles Barkley
thx
that's more than a little interesting
I suppose, very speculatively...
This could also be the result of very large order(s) for the likes of massive installations of the likes of FCEL...
Carbon Capture
Hydrogen
Nuclear Load Balancing
Not sure if this is the base metal we 'bake' with extra ingredients
In any case, at is a big increase of such materials; at least, as claimed, suitable for fuel cells of the kind used in fuel cell vehicles.
As far as I am aware, this does not have any direct relation.
The indirect relation would be the likes of Toyota fuel cell vehicles.
Somebody needs to make the hydrogen
fyi
https://www.phnompenhpost.com/business/posco-make-10000-tonnes-fuel-cell-separators
Back of the napkin, a 10X increase in the materials needed to make 35,000 fuel cell vehicles, or, to be, 350,000
It's a PII
The 'story' of "age adjusted" is plausible
So... wait and see. i.e., "no idea"
It really wouldn't help anything in this case
The analogy would be more similar to getting a new procedure to remove an appendix approved.
Placebo that
"Did you actually take out the appendix or not?"
There is no reason here to do placebo, we want the best care possible for probably fatal indication, the most possible information available to healthcare and patients.
Placebo is generally for non-life threatening things, and oral tablets.
It's the way you ask the question
Roll the dice first, then if the candidate is to be sorted in to control group, you can ask them 'Would you mind if we use you in this base-line study vs. another group? You don't need to take any extra medication, this is just for math purposes and it will help us out a lot.'
The open-label style on the test group side is also most helpful, the doctor is informed what you have been taking in case there is a reaction, or what further treatment options may or may not be in order based on what you've taken so far.