They are not seeing much in the MRI's is one possible take from what they said. But go back to 58:30 where one researcher talks about how GBM itself can often not be seen in the MRI's when it is dispersed.
I agree that the mild bashing was disturbing. But comments others have made about competition, even among very good people, is real.
Eons ago I built a gadget at night at work to allow our MRI system to warm up faster. It was a resistive MRI magnet, not superconducting. One of the Ph.D.'s volunteered to test it. I let him, since I did not have my MRI pilots license... and he lied and said it didn't work. He was sure it would create excess noise, and he showed me the test result, which showed no measurable noise. That was all he had printed out. He didn't bother to hit the second key to print out the parameter involved in warm-up. One fkn key. But he assured me it had not worked. Knowing that the data stayed on the computer until the test was repeated, I tried to get him to print it out later, but he found a way out of it every time. Needed to go to a meeting, etc..
A year later the company got it's back to the wall and needed that gadget badly. They needed it as standard equipment on their new mobile systems where warm-up time is more critical (and where one of the VP's screwed up and advertised an incorrect start-up time). And he knew this, but he said nothing. I finally had to chess game my way around him. I was successful in doing that, and the device became standard production. First test on the mobile system was a 10 fold reduction in drift. In the end it wasn't really that good, but it was pretty good. It definitely worked and that researcher definitely lied. (I knew that he had lied from day 1). And this was a great guy. One of the best men you could ever meet. He tarnished himself that time, but it was out of character.
The possible similarities to this situation are very strong. Good guys, but maybe bashing something good. And specifically the shock they express that the therapy does not create side effects. But these efficacy test results are not in their hands, as in my case.
As Highwayman said, all they know is that they have not seen pseudoprogression, as they would expect. But how much pseudoprogression did LL report in the early studies, and how many patients have these guys seen? Not that many it sounds like. Doesn't sound like a solid basis for criticism given the low number stat basis.
But I hear you. The discussion got to me. I see why you would smile and embrace everything negative that they say. And you might be right. They might get their wish. You might get your wish. Make a wish!
