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 had read that article
My observations:
The only referenced number of deaths was 28
The vaccinated population as of then was about 4 million
The total adverse reactions were 2,900
Now then, if you have one death and use that as a base-line, then 2 deaths is a 100% increase.
If you have 4 deaths, you can use the phrase "hundreds of percent increase in the rate of deaths".
Unless people who publish these articles put out all of the raw data, I cannot take stock in "percentage increases".
The universe is billions of percent colder than it used to be, we are doing fine.
That being said, I do not care much for these new vaccines, but let's have some decent reporting by somebody, somewhere, anybody !
omg, stupid news media
If anybody only puts out "% increase in whatever" data then you can safely assume you are being screwed by their wording.
That is a very interesting observation that the later stage(s) may be more susceptible to "cure" or effect.
Was going to say...
Dunno about y'all but all my great stuff is not so great right now.
I managed to be smart and trim a bit in advance (other things)
thx flute
Forgot that guy's name
I believe he has posted here some sheets
My bad
But no. I don't play on the sell calls and puts side, I play on the buy side.
Basically you just dial your exact risk and let 'er rip.
January was a great month for me, mostly it was un-hedged long calls no puts for insurance. Mostly.
Leverage comes out of picking a direction and "weighting" that way, so I do a fair amount of 100-300% long call and 50-100% loss covering puts, and the puts tend to be 50% of the long position.
If you read books and do "strategies" you get skrewed
For one, I don't look at it that way at all.
The share price is just noise until there are fundamentals to speak of.
"bleeding?"
Meandering around.
imnsho - the lower the better prior to unveiling. Higher up-side, less far to fall.
Desire for something else at this point makes no sense to me.
Reminds me of those things, what are they called... oh, "Trees"
We need something significantly better than that
Looks great !
Again, the only thing I would add, and for two reasons, is a parameter for "% responding".
Reason 1 is to get a feel for the confidence in anticipation of published results.
Reason 2 is so this work will continue to be useful after the published results. Why? Because the published results should contain "% responding" ORR... and that, in turn, should carry weight as to whether or not the BLA filing will be expected to be successful.
For example, say we only make a 7% differential is overall survival, but the ORR is 100%... as well as positive secondary end-points.
Compare that to 9% differential and 20% responding. May look fluke-y to regulators.
If you do it you'll see (no pressure) that the OS assumptions + dropout assumptions + ORR assumptions are "the" triple constraint
( at certain thresholds )
When I did that, the worst possible case of selecting parameters that were still barely acceptable to reason left us at 11.25% differential.
Anybody who is not winning with puts and calls is doing it way wrong, so wrong, they need to do exactly the opposite, including "duration".
I seem to recall, first time I read about that "rule" it was "less than a billion" market cap.
I guess it is subject to revision
I have some GBLX for that reason
CTSO is a mechanical filter of cytokine storm
GBLX claims to have an extract that does the same thing
In either case, there is opportunity to introduce treatments that would otherwise be "toxic" and perhaps mitigate the toxicity and enable curing effects.
Hey, anybody else watching this?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=162159867
Things are a little early yet, but...
CAR T already exists, all the *umab stuff already exists, ...
Seems that they have the potential to phase I,II,III at a high rate of speed
This is interesting
How big is this "ice berg" ?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/huge-losses-on-derivative-trades-at-geode-capital-management-force-hedge-fund-business-shutdown-wsj
It is speculative, surely.
However, I don't see why it can't hit $20 if it starts making sales.
I don't see the covid 19 vaccines working, I just see new strains of covid 19.
So, no risk, no reward.
This one has ability to adapt to different threats, even chem.
My best guess is we have to test our way out of COVID, the alignment with mass gathering events Football, Soccer, Baseball, is exactly right.
Oops, can't forget Hockey, it's Canadian
That's my 3rd largest position at the moment, CTSO
Then FLURF because I think all this vaccine crud is crud and this is going to go on for a while (years)
GBLX seems to be working on something similar
Not sure how much "stock" to put in that though.
I saw a Moderna article, the preliminary data did look somewhat promising for H&N, but apparently did not appear to work on colo-rectal
It seems like phase I type stuff, so no rush I don't think. I haven't found anything else yet.
Dunno
ONCY seems more interesting
I'll keep reading
Watch out for Marmots and Trees
:)
That would be better than any currently so-called "vaccines"
Apparently none of the "vaccines" are actual vaccines, they are more like gene therapy. ( been reading fake news about that, maybe it is not fake, dunno, haven't had a chance to follow up much, been too busy )
@george
Yeah, I have no idea how long that would take, it could be a complication "delay" to do that
@GD
I'm not exactly sure of the comparison here.
Look at the inclusion/exclusion criteria
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01265849?term=multikine&draw=2&rank=3
So apparently we did not exclude what we thought didn't work in PII ?
Meanwhile, in order to hit 298 when we did, the efficacy in the "subgroup" has to be rather dramatic if it is more or less 50% of the test group.
It won't be like NWBO because, I think, the signal is much stronger. If this pans out like this then we did not extend life a little bit in the subgroup, but a lot, more than Fosco's suggestion there (but for the subgroup)
That might sound like the word "cure" for those.
...
Then if the "target" can be introduced to the other 50% as per the article about Dendreon and anti-cancer vaccine... that would be next.
@george
Ok, from that same link
So you're right, not only is it a target, it is apparently one that can be introduced.
@george
That isn't exactly a marker "target"
It is an effect
@james
Once I became resigned to the "wait for the full report" instead of "here's the top-line results" then the entire process of science started to bubble in my thoughts, and it is not fast. So many things to account for, possibly follow up on in more ways than writing a report...
Pretty sure we are also evaluating tissue samples. Maybe that was pre-defined and could be done along the way, or maybe it has to be looked at or looked at all over again at the end. I imagine that can be tedious, especially when you factor in "ok, this guy has these gene markers, that guy has those..." The volume of data there has to be far in excess of some paper report, to includes slides, samples, and tons more reports.
A full scientific report has got to be rather grueling, we cracked open a lot of new things to be studied and documented with this study.
Also, possibly several scientific papers may come of this, not just one.
Then there is the auxiliary arm that "the FDA wanted", perhaps simply as an additional control, but figure if there is any difference in CIZ + MK vs. just MK then that is a whole research project right there.
@james
One would hope the doctor would explain "If you think this is bad, wait until you try chemotherapy"
@james
More on that note
For example purposes only, say that 50% of the test group responds to injection and 50% does not.
That means that three fourths of the test+control are equivalent to control group expectation.
This could skew the "signal" in terms of "top line data". We might look for "10% improvement to over all survival at 3 years measured on a kaplan meier chart", and it might get nitty gritty.
HOWEVER, of those 50% who DID respond to injection, what if the over all survival is dramatic.
The over all study might not notice so much, but this "sub-group" did notice. Big time.
That is a very distinct possibility.
The IDMC did not halt the trial early due to dramatic success "Ok do it".
So, to some degree, for some reason, I think we are squeaking by; but somehow there is some pretty good differential going on.
This "factor", call it that, really put the hurt on my ability to agree all the way with Fosco on how effective this can be so far, over all.
@james
Yes.
Nice...
Some notes
When I did it, I assumed all enrollment numbers for a month were at the very end of the month because there is no information reported other than monthly. Earlier when doing this sort of thing, that assumption was significant in pondering when 298 events will be reached.
Pretty cool breakdown by cancer stage. Comment more about those assumptions please since afaik we can't know that, how many in each stage when.
The three controlling assumptions I came up with are the OS assumptions, the dropout assumptions, and the % responding to injection assumptions.
For the risk side of things, our "sample size" is about 800 compared to SEER data sampling maybe 200,000. So I think we figured 5% slop was in order.
That led me to do a stochastic (monte carlo) but that was limited by available information to the assumption of simply IF there is a difference, WHEN does it appear most dramatic, as the data runs along. Basically it simply characterized the enrollment and drew two lines right on top of each other until Q2 to Q4 last year when there was a clear separation. Possibly otherwise known as "delayed clinical effect", but actually a function of "waves" of enrollment.
In the end I came up with a more conservative estimate of 11.25% differential measured at year 3 ( of the individual patient year 3 each, not the over all trial year 3 ) This was more of a "chart interpretation" than a direct math.
Yeah, it sort of worked, sort of killed at least one of the patients, and was kinda gross.
Bacteria are nature's little nano-bots, if we can figure out how to program them right.
There was an episode of the show "Vice" on HBO I think it is, that had some promising cancer treatments.
One of them was a re-engineered small-pox virus via IV drip, gallon bag or more of that.
It put the patient into a coma for like a week or so, but came out clean in the end.
I think it was a teenager.
Maybe it would kill an adult to do that.
Yeah, flushing...
I think I have about 40 gallons in the water heater. If by the end of today the water still isn't on I might shut off the water heater first and then drain some into a bucket for flushing.
( I got a short hose to help )
Probably not a good idea to drain a water heater with the gas or electric still running.
I would keep it for survival water but the roads work and we got a lot of water out and about yesterday.
Also I had managed to save some water in the bathtub ( I had been using it as a heat mass ) and got caught at just the wrong time or I'd have more water in there.
Officially I think it is on average 600 electric watts, to power a gas furnace (fan)
But, when it comes to anything electric, I always go with more, stuff lasts longer and works better.
There is also a product-line called Mr. Heaters. They have units designed for indoor use. They are more expensive but they are less likely to kill you. You gotta watch it with carbon monoxide otherwise. get the right stuff for indoor use, or you are at great risk from doing something tragic, with those. You can power these things with propane tanks. Two of 'em is probably good enough to keep any ordinary house from freezing.
If you can get gas, then maybe an inverter is a good idea, if you can't get gas but you can get propane, then the little heater thingies are maybe a better idea.
If you have gas heat...
And either one or two generators or one or two power inverters for your vehicles...
Then you can keep your central heat running on about 700 Watts (usually)
The furnace usually has a standard 120v plug
It is the air-conditioning that is 220
THX for asking
Far as I know most people in TX are doing ok so far
It is several million people so I might be wrong something like 0.0001% of the time on that statement, and... that could change dramatically. Water is turned off in a lot of places now, can't be good for people.
I haven't been watching the news though, so what do I know.
My neighborhood and area seemed to do ok, I did go driving around.
???
COVERED ???
Power has been out for a few days. Somebody trade for me until I get back...
Yes but...
There's two reasons to be detailed
One is, you didn't do what you were hoping however there is a promising subgroup, and it takes detailed analysis to show it
Two is, you knocked it out of the park so big nobody will believe you unless you dot every i and cross every T
6 months is short for any research analysis
For top-line data, sure, all pre-specified
In favor of the later option there, we have all along been talking about changing the standard of care
I didn't like it, this approach to reporting, but the more I think about it the more important it is
regarding complexity, I believe we do tissue studies also
If you think that's bad, wait 'till it has to get submitted to let alone go through the FDA