Ultimately, NWBO set up a trial by defining those excluded and included to the trial, and to see whether the treatment (DCVAX) would improve (OS i.e., the 6 revised endpoints) now that after all has been said and done WHO comes along and reclassifies part of those included in the trial as non GBM should really have no bearing on the trial results. Think for a moment if the opposite were true and the "removal" from the trial caused the trial to FAIL, would you still be saying the same thing - that's how the cookie crumbles? Ie., if those redefined out of the trial were the cases that the treatment helped and could no longer count as a success leaving the narrowed trial to fail, after 15 years of effort, expense and trials just because the WHO came along in the last days and redefined GBM? No way, you would likely be arguing, WHO be damned, and our trial succeeded on those we intended to treat and should be approved by the FDA for all those included in the trial whether or not WHO changed the labels for those still very serious conditions that we now claim to have a treatment for. Well this is just the reverse of that, but the same logic still applies.
Ultimately, I still believe that the trial succeeded even without the new WHO definition of GBM, and has no need for this new crutch on which to posit success. Go NWBO.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
