InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 53
Posts 3433
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/26/2013

Re: Pyrrhonian post# 10725

Wednesday, 05/21/2014 10:23:22 AM

Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:23:22 AM

Post# of 704700
Hey Pyrr…Nice. Here’s just a couple of minor editing changes. Feel free to throw them in the garbage.
- “That's right, anywhere, including in the brain, in the liver, in the pancreas, in the colon, in the lung--literally anywhere.”

“That's right, anywhere, including in the brain, liver, pancreas, colon, lung--literally anywhere.”

- "activated" (with proprietary company technology)

- “The far more likely scenario is that, just as seen in the Triozzi study, 100% response rate will eventually be reported in the DCVax-Direct trial. What has not been seen to date with an intratumorally injected DC vaccine is zero response. In fact, as a broad category, intratumoral injection has always proved effective. The problem has been poor tolerability in using synthetic, toxic and therefore harmful substances, such as seen here. This is not the case with the abundantly homogeneous DC vaccines.”

Regarding, “The far more likely scenario is that, just as seen in the Triozzi study, 100% response rate will eventually be reported in the DCVax-Direct trial.”, while most on this message board are comfortable w this statement, you are setting yourself up with nasty comments from those more skeptical. I would state something akin to - The far more likely scenario is that, similar to the Triozzi study, large (or strong or perceptible, etc) response rate will eventually be reported in the DCVax-Direct trial.”

Regarding, “The problem has been poor tolerability in using synthetic, toxic and therefore harmful substances, such as seen here” “such as seen here” seems ambiguous.

That’s as far as I got, need to run out. Again, excellent article, summarizes it nicely, and feel free to place these comments in the garbage.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent NWBO News