I understand that, but how long was the break between new patients starting the trial. If it was anything like the year I threw out there, after the last 31 to be dosed, all others would have that additional year of survival.
I certainly don't know, but suspect that the regulators during the halt recognized that those getting the vaccine up front were getting the maximum benefit and agreed that all remaining should get the vaccine initially. For all I know, the halt might have come on a suggestion that the trial end early and the drug be approved, but after the regulators thought it over they wanted the additional data on survival so the benefit was completely clear.
I cannot help but believe that 5 years ago those involved in the trial could see that some patients were having great benefits. On occasion such benefits will see trials ended early. During part of my treatment I was on Gleevec, it was originally approved on data from 70+ patients in a much larger trial because PH+ ALL was almost always deadly. I'm uncertain if the FDA stopped the trial, or it came from actions initiated by the drug developer, but it certainly illustrates how early such action can come.
I suspect if pseudoprogression had been properly identified from the beginning of the trial, this trial too might have been terminated and approved earlier. I'm not complaining as I didn't hear about it until the share price was low, so I'll have a greater percentage gain than many who've been in substantially longer, though I'm sure many will make more as they've accumulated many shares over the years in averaging down.
I have sufficient share to make a million when it reaches double digit dollars.
Gary
