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.
Scotch is definitely an aquired taste — I aquired mine under somewhat unique circumstances, for which I am thankful.
Knowing a Whinnie and going to Scotland is even better!
Yep, I understand they do it by site and try to balance by different factors and can conceive of how one would program it to make it work out as optimally as possible. I was offering a ballpark estimate, but as you point out, it shouldn’t get as unbalanced as that.
I’m having a hard time believing someone intervened and purposely skewed things in one direction.
I tend to agree with you on the impact of randomizing across many sites and stratification, but that’s only my intuition. Proof of that is beyond my ability without dusting off a stats book and spending more hours than I care to imagine getting up to speed.
I used this binomial calculator tool - essentially a glorified coin tosser that you can weight to give odds other than 50%.
https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/calculators/binomial-distribution-calculator/
It only goes up to n = 300, so I adjusted downward by 10% since n = 331.
The likelihood of being a control (flipping tails with a loaded coin ) is p = .33.
Number of trials (flips of the loaded coin) = 300 (limit of the tool).
Range of successful flips/trials coming up for control arm is between x1 = 0 and x2 = 90 (the 10% adjustment because of tool limitation).
The likelihood of that result is .148 or roughly 15%.
I did a very rough estimate on that and it seems like they might come up with 99 or less controls roughly 15% of the time, so not a crazy result. Someone who is better at stats want to give it a whirl?
Thanks Cap’n - it’s either that or become bitter with age! I believe we can choose which way we want to go on that.
Btw, we share a passion - single malt lovers (The Macallan or The Balvenie Dooblewood for me).
Was there more to their announcement that this?
Regarding the 69 authors willing to associate their name to the trial by publication:
Many of them are probably associated with universities, like Liau and Prins. One of the key metrics academics are measured on is the number of publications they have their name on (the “Publish or Perish” phenomenon). No under the table option grants required!
This doesn’t mean they know the trial is successful — how can anyone know that (not opine but know) since the trial is still blinded, regardless of what the tea-leaves may say? Their personal experience may lead them to a strong personal belief that DCVax-L is effective (like the British PI does), but that doesn’t mean the trial will be successful. If they “know” that, then they are overlooking the issue of crossover confounding (damn, it’s too effective!) or the dark forces of Sauron (however you want to define them in this particular case), to name a couple of possibilities.
It also suggests that they do not believe NWBO is being operated as a scam, because I believe if they thought that, they would disassociate themselves from the trial.
However, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t all a big scam, it just means that doctors and academic types aren’t familiar with the workings of small cap scams and can’t detect the signs. That wouldn’t be surprising—why would they have that particular expertise?
The above paragraph does NOT mean that I believe NWBO is a scam. It is a possibility, however, no matter what I happen to believe. If one hasn’t learned that 100% certainty is an illusion, I have a great list of noir films to recommend that will help you see the light, or the dark, as the case may be. There are many other ways to come to that conclusion (philosophy, study of history, media analysis, cognitive science, hanging around divorce court, etc) but film is the most entertaining and takes less effort.
Not sure how these two rGBM arms compare with patients in the phase 3 trial in the control arm who recurred, then crossed over, other than the two arms outside the trial had more aggressive disease.
Not seeing evidence of 2nd surgeries — does it mean the vaccine was made from the primary tumor?
Does a 5 month extension in survival for the two rGBM arms raise the specter of confounding in a more tangible way or is this old news? (Probably should have asked this first, lol)
No problem, Jammy, figured you were occupied.
Will follow up with a response that touches on some of the points you raise soon.
It’s not a trigger, it’s a strobe light in a neurologist’s clinic.
(Just a metaphor, please!)
Agreed — it is enjoyable and Chappelle steals the show.
I hope to follow up with a post on Conspiracy Brother soon that relates to how clinical trials are run now and one particular issue they face — interesting connection (all those dots really don’t like being isolated )
Virgilio, I don’t doubt the hype machine kicks in around dates but I can be a little slow to read between the lines sometimes — must admit I didn’t get what you were arguing in your post!
Still learning the ropes around here - for example, what words are trigger words for longs or shorts. It’s kind of fascinating, all in all.
The following is not directed at you, so I hope you don’t take offense! It’s more a general reflection on trigger words. My thoughts went to a great movie scene triggered by Undercover Brother saying “Good Morning” to Conspiracy Brother - highly recommended, especially if you like edgy humor, or Dave Chappell in particular.
The info was tweeted by Carlo Rago on the #ASCO2019 tweeter feed (or whatever its called).
The full tweet was
Sell than buy....
I tend to buy the heroic narrative on NWBO vs BP but not ready to elevate LP to sainthood.
I’m more likely to sell than but after reading your message- is that your intent?
Jerry, thanks - most interesting info indeed. Definitely worth following up on! Anyone happen to have more background on this laying around that they want to share?
TIA
Lol - are they holding small harps?
Thanks Senti - a very worthwhile read. Seems to clear up the issue of stealing by Watson and Crick (didn’t happen), reinforces Franklin’s vital contributions as well as gives additional color around her personality and demonstrates the apparently abysmal attitude Watson and no doubt others had toward female scientists. How the Nobel Prize was handled seems particularly bad as well, even if there is a rule against giving it to the deceased. The Nobel Committee and the three winners (don’t forget Wilkins) should have acknowledged her vital contributions during the award ceremony.
Another example of scientific understatement, found to jog my memory but since I found it, might as well pass it on since it’s kind of entertaining if one is skewed in a certain way.
When Drucker announced the first experimental results of imatinib on CML, kicking off the era of targeted therapies, published in the journal Nature Medicine, he concluded: “This compound may be useful in the treatment of Bcr-abl positive leukemias.”
From “The Emperor of All Maladies,” p. 435
Excellent AVII7- it’s great to nail things down, much appreciated!!
Should have just waited for you to clarify lol
I like your use of “balonious”, at least I think that’s it.
Thanks Jerry, appreciate the link! You piqued my interest— so I found the PR with his and Bayh’s appointment to the board. I can see why people connected those dots since the title of the PR mentioned investigation expertise and came just a month after the committee you linked to was formed.
Not unreasonable dot-connecting but not definitive either.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nw-bio-announces-appointment-of-two-new-independent-directors-with-biotechpharma-expertise-and-cybersecurityinvestigations-expertise-300208977.html
Anyone else have more to add on this?
I think the operative metaphor is “Throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if anything sticks.” Sorry if the use of this phrase to critique ICI trials is cliche on the mb — that’s one of the problems with joining a multi-year conversation in the last couple of months!
The Chairman could help toss the CEO, depending on the composition of the board.
Lol - the sweet acoustic guitar intro threw me — Metallica’s Master of Puppets would seem more in tune.
that’s normally a fair assumption but given the strange goings on around NWBO (most of them not under their control) I’m not sure about that
The possible impact of the shutdown on approvals has been mentioned before.
This is an article published today
https://endpts.com/organizations-representing-patients-doctors-decry-impact-of-prolonged-government-shutdown-on-public-health/
Abeta, I think you have achieved e. E cUmmIng;hOOd
“Which is cool /
one of my
fav-orite
Or you got a receptionist who is clueless.
(Feel compelled to clarify I don’t mean all receptionists are clueless).