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.
That's a very interesting thought.
Interesting. How do you know that most doctors just sign their name? Are you a researcher or at a journal?
Well said, Inveterate.
Iwasadiver: Stop throwing around FACTS as if they were true!
I saw TC Traders post re: buyout possibility as a reason for conversion yesterday which apparently started this train of thought, but I haven't read the board between then and now, so it's possible this idea has already be kicked around: If some positive news is imminent which will bump the pps, those holding the preferred would want the option to sell shares, and therefore, the conversion would had to have been completed prior. Just a thought. I am not one of those shareholders, unfortunately.
You heard wrong. Yes, August is almost gone. Thanks for the update on the calendar.
I'm still in too. Some time ago, I adopted the "Watched Pot" method of investing. Not only doesn't the pot boil, it's damn boring watching! I do hope that my alerts get triggered sooner rather than later, though.
Senti:
Have you considered sending your observations to the NEJM? Seriously.
Yep, still people wonder aloud why LP is playing her cards so close to her chest. And this is just one incident. I don't love it, but I understand and accept it.
Start date changed from 6/1 to 9/1/18. FWIW.
Thank you, Senti, for this masterful exposition. It's pretty clear to me that something came out of left field to bring about the halt. Whatever it was was completely unexpected by LP & Co. At the time, it seems they truly believed that this curveball would be settled in a matter of weeks. In thinking about how they could be so blindsided by that event, I keep coming back to the real possibility that there were confederates in key positions bent on undermining the trial. Maybe one day we'll know whether my gut is right; maybe not.
And, by the way, love your closing visual.
The topic is NWBO. Posts addressing other posters will be deleted.Not open for discussion.
This is a broader picture of the Journal's reach:
Altmetric DC-VAX
Very interesting.
NWBO just filed a Current report, item 2.03
EDGAR
ASCO Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Richard Schilsky, says Right to Try is a misleading name, he suggests that a more apt name would be Right to Ask. One of the criteria to receive treatment under RTT is that another potential treatment is not considered better. (By whom? FDA?)
RTT Podcast
RTT doesn't force MDs to comply with a patient's request.
RTT:
Medscape Medical News > Oncology News
Helping Cancer Patients to Understand New 'Right-to-Try' Law
Kerry Dooley Young
June 13, 2018
Cancer specialists are preparing to help patients understand what a new federal law will mean in terms of allowing access to experimental medicines outside of currently established paths.
The debate around the so-called "right-to-try" law may have created unrealistic expectations about what the measure will do for patients, top officials from major oncology associations told Medscape Medical News. Patients too ill to participate in clinical trials may anticipate that the law will grant them access to promising experimental therapies, they said.
"There will be more patients asking questions because of the sense of expectation that the new law has created," Robert W. Carlson, MD, chief executive of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), a not-for-profit alliance, said in an interview.
Patients may think that "there are promising drugs out there that they're being denied, and that all of a sudden this law is going to make effective drugs available to them," he said.
Richard L. Schilsky, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), said the measure should have been called the "right-to-ask" law.
"There's been so much hype about this, and the name has been, in a sense, so misleading," Schilsky commented in an interview.
Signed by President Donald Trump on May 30, the new law does not compel drugmakers or physicians to provide early-stage medicines to patients who seek them. It instead may bolster the cases of patients who seek these drugs outside of clinical trials. The bill is intended to encourage drugmakers to more freely provide more experimental medicines by limiting the drugmakers' liability.
The new law directs the drugmakers to submit to the Department of Health and Human Services an annual summary of use under the right-to-try provisions of their experimental products. These reports are to include the number of doses supplied, the number of patients treated, the uses for which the drug was made available, and any known serious adverse events.
Pharmaceutical companies already provide experimental medicines outside of clinical trials through the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) expanded access program, under which physicians may seek consent from the agency.
ASCO has prepared a podcast about the new law to help oncologists and the public better understand it. Schilsky said physicians will need to convey to their patients the steep odds against successful treatment with experimental drugs that are offered through the right-to-try program. These medicines need only have been tested in phase 1 trials, which are initial screenings to determine whether medicines are safe enough for more advanced testing.
"Most drugs that enter into clinical development never make it across the finish line to get FDA approval," Schilsky said. "You can just sort of anticipate that a lot of these drugs that are still investigational are never going to be proven to be efficacious."
FWIW, stoneroad is an anagram of Dan Senor with a 't' added.
“This is not an insignificant observation.”
Nice work, Flipper
Shortly after the halt was announced, I called FDA and asked whether they ever halt a trial for ethical reasons because the treatment is clearly working better than placebo and it would, therefore, be unethical to continue giving some patients placebo. I was told that it has been known to happen, and that it was something that was evaluated on a case by case basis.There was no strict policy.
I'm posting this FWIW.
Hooray - well done!
Chuckle
Thanks for posting John. I'm happy to see L Liau quoted.
Source
FierceBiotech picked up the PR, but rather than emphasizing the significant results reported and potential benefit to patients , the editor, Amirah Al Idrus, chose to end the piece with a completely irrelevant jab:
Good point, biosect. To try to help spread the word, I've posted links to the PR and study on my social media accounts. I'd suggest others might want to do the same.
Very positive article!
re: Dame Dame Tessa Jowell:
Miller says in the interview that her white blood cell count was very low. Is it possible that it was so low that sufficient dendritic cells couldn't be collected through leukapheresis? And, therefor, the vaccine just couldn't be made for her?
From clinicaltrials.gov, one of the criteria for the trial:
I can report that calls were made.
This may have been resolved, but, in speaking to Les I asked what the time period from proxy issuance to vote is. He said minimum of 15, maximum 30 days. Look for it to be sooner rather than later, IMO.
I've also been here since pre-R/S days. I'm with you on all that you wrote here. I'll be voting yes also. Does it feel great to see it come to the point of a billion shares having started out with a small fraction of that? No, of course not. But, this is not about feelings. Sorry naysayers- this isn't a scam. But, if it were, it would be the hardest nickel Les and Linda ever made. I know for a fact that Les works about 20 hours a day on NWBO. Is that so he can scam shareholders in order to....collect his salary and have all of his stock and options become worthless in the process?
I think that the cone of silence will soon be lifted, and while we won't have all of the answers to our many questions immediately, I do believe that the pieces will start to fall into place quickly. IMO
Intriguing.
VuBru: Would you mind leaving tomorrow?
What would constitute confirmation, really? Being confirmed by a second rumor doesn't bolster its likelihood. Also, I'd be surprised if the company or journal itself will telegraph impending publication.
From Admin. re: deleted posts:
A refresher from the IHub Moderators' Handbook --
Senti: The Top portion of the job position reads as if it was translated to English by a translator app. But, why?
Mention in UK publication: Buckingham and Winslow Advertiser
Sorry if this is a repeat. I've been off the grid for a while.
Beartrap: Good point, thanks. I'd have to imagine that the curiosity of each clinician would keep her/him on their toes looking for clues as to which arm a patient is in. This doesn't mean that they'll always be right, but it does mean they will have been paying attention, IMO. I'm hoping that the @###&^%! article will have some of the clinicians anecdotes, but I'd definitely take the article without them at this point!