Thursday, December 28, 2017 12:16:18 AM
ae kusterer,
Yes, I think approval based on blinded data would be precedent setting but what if something very unusual was happening in this trial. For example, what if Kat's Cure experience of complete remission was not unique but being multiplied in a significant number of cases? Would a DMC or governing body potentially intervene and to what degree if they did? We know the Germans are very willing to intervene if placebo is considered inferior to treatment. Did they intervene first because of seeing something like this but then FDA withdrew the screening hold later once potential changes made in Germany passed the equivalency test and any potential reservations by FDA about changes made to L in process manufacturing were taken care of? Coincidently that might have happened right about the time that blinded PFS data would have been available and under review. Did NIH get involved in this whole process due to their own contamination problems that led to manufacturing changes of their cellular products which led to their patent involvement in the planned Phase 2 combo trials? I don't know for sure but I can't rule this out either. Best wishes.
Yes, I think approval based on blinded data would be precedent setting but what if something very unusual was happening in this trial. For example, what if Kat's Cure experience of complete remission was not unique but being multiplied in a significant number of cases? Would a DMC or governing body potentially intervene and to what degree if they did? We know the Germans are very willing to intervene if placebo is considered inferior to treatment. Did they intervene first because of seeing something like this but then FDA withdrew the screening hold later once potential changes made in Germany passed the equivalency test and any potential reservations by FDA about changes made to L in process manufacturing were taken care of? Coincidently that might have happened right about the time that blinded PFS data would have been available and under review. Did NIH get involved in this whole process due to their own contamination problems that led to manufacturing changes of their cellular products which led to their patent involvement in the planned Phase 2 combo trials? I don't know for sure but I can't rule this out either. Best wishes.
Recent NWBO News
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/07/2026 04:30:50 PM
- Form NT 10-K - Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-K 405, 10-K, 10-KSB 405, 10-KSB, 10-KT, or 10-KT405 • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/31/2026 09:04:37 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 01/15/2026 10:06:20 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 01/02/2026 10:14:59 PM
- Form DEF 14A - Other definitive proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/28/2025 09:43:27 PM
- Form EFFECT - Notice of Effectiveness • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/26/2025 05:15:34 AM
- Form 424B5 - Prospectus [Rule 424(b)(5)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/25/2025 10:23:07 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/20/2025 09:26:03 PM
- Form PRE 14A - Other preliminary proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/19/2025 09:15:48 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/14/2025 09:44:21 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/31/2025 04:29:10 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/30/2025 08:40:05 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/24/2025 04:28:38 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/14/2025 06:22:26 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 08/14/2025 09:00:38 PM
- Form 424B5 - Prospectus [Rule 424(b)(5)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 07/01/2025 09:04:38 PM
