AI
| Followers | 200 |
| Posts | 25596 |
| Boards Moderated | 0 |
| Alias Born | 04/03/2010 |
Sunday, January 15, 2023 12:27:06 AM
The criticism article apparently did not read that deeply or they'd know it was not post hoc. They appear to have used Adam Feuerstein for that "fact".
No, the SAP clearly does address issues of resection, total and partial, in the comparable trials, and residual disease and the comparable trials are indeed comparable. I think this gets at the issue you claim you want addressed, as does Dr. Liau's discussion of the issue in her presentation with Dr. Musella.
That editorial was not peer reviewed, which you claimed, and the trial by necessity required patients have tumor removed. If you wanted more patients who did not have surgery then they'd by necessity be included in the placebo group only, and not randomly. I'm sure such patients were screened. I doubt they lived LONGER.
Such patients could not be in the treatment arm because there would not be tumor to create the vaccine. But the patients receiving a massive surgery like this are not necessarily the "healthiest". The patients with the largest tumors that merit such surgery are not necessarily the healthiest". This is a qualitative judgment that seems not only not accurate but not scientific in nature. Just a statement out of nothing. The statistical consultants approached the task quite carefully and scientifically. They did not just apply their offhanded opinions, which those doctors could do in their editorial, because it was, in fact, an editorial.
And your claims simply do not appear to be valid for rGBM, where the issue is irrelevant, nor for other anecdotal patients they treated outside of the trial, and the comparable patients in the comparable trials seem quite reasonably similar:
And let's note, they did do comparisons between similar patients in the relevant trials, i.e., patients who had residual disease that was significant or not, for nGBM, and found striking results that DCVax-L created better outcomes for patients with significant residual disease in the DCVax-L trial compared to similar patients in the ECA. So it's simply not a valid criticism, absent looking at the actual statistics. People can give opinions all day and night, but if it's not founded in the data, it's pointless.
No, the SAP clearly does address issues of resection, total and partial, in the comparable trials, and residual disease and the comparable trials are indeed comparable. I think this gets at the issue you claim you want addressed, as does Dr. Liau's discussion of the issue in her presentation with Dr. Musella.
That editorial was not peer reviewed, which you claimed, and the trial by necessity required patients have tumor removed. If you wanted more patients who did not have surgery then they'd by necessity be included in the placebo group only, and not randomly. I'm sure such patients were screened. I doubt they lived LONGER.
Such patients could not be in the treatment arm because there would not be tumor to create the vaccine. But the patients receiving a massive surgery like this are not necessarily the "healthiest". The patients with the largest tumors that merit such surgery are not necessarily the healthiest". This is a qualitative judgment that seems not only not accurate but not scientific in nature. Just a statement out of nothing. The statistical consultants approached the task quite carefully and scientifically. They did not just apply their offhanded opinions, which those doctors could do in their editorial, because it was, in fact, an editorial.
And your claims simply do not appear to be valid for rGBM, where the issue is irrelevant, nor for other anecdotal patients they treated outside of the trial, and the comparable patients in the comparable trials seem quite reasonably similar:
And let's note, they did do comparisons between similar patients in the relevant trials, i.e., patients who had residual disease that was significant or not, for nGBM, and found striking results that DCVax-L created better outcomes for patients with significant residual disease in the DCVax-L trial compared to similar patients in the ECA. So it's simply not a valid criticism, absent looking at the actual statistics. People can give opinions all day and night, but if it's not founded in the data, it's pointless.
Bullish
I own NWBO. My posts on iHub are always posted expressly as just my humble opinion (IMHO) and none are advice, just my opinion. I am NOT a financial advisor, and it is assumed that everyone is responsible for their own due diligence.
