Afford, I'm actually a little surprised by the question. I thought my views were well known. I get made fun by some for sharing DD; for my long post. But I guess not, if you're asking. You can go back 100 post or 1000 post, and you'll find I believe it contributes to overall survival. I never stopped believing that, though I was a bit concerned about confounding agents.
Perhaps my tone changes depending on who I'm talking to and what I'm talking about. What I don't like, and never will, is how the company misleads shareholder to believe efficacy results are better than they are. I believe the Company presents the DCVax-L data in the way they do because it "might" not be as glowing without it. (The CUA certainly wouldn't be as positive "Indeterminate" data if they told you that rapid progressor pool contained psPDs in it at baseline too!). I stopped being impressed by their words and know to look at what is not being said. I also stopped being persuaded by others to interpret their words as all smoke and mirrors. I trust my due diligence more than anyone else's. There is efficacy going on, even if it's not as glossy as NW Bio reports it. I see flaws in skeptics unbalanced thought process. Success is not guaranteed by any means but my bet is the study will at least find some success in a portion of their data. I'm definitely a little more confident about their chances than I was a few weeks ago. I was able to find similar treatments the more I researched. Proof on methods they use has found success. I shared some the last few days. Plus, I can finally take the Company's SEC statements at activation and maturation methods at their words instead of worrying about any freeze-thaw concern. I also agree with Flip in that they are naturally remove patients with low lymphocyte count. They are getting the best of the middle group. I believe they have build the best study they can. I see PFS as the appropriate endpoint to get the best out of the technology. It allows for departure from STUPP at crossover, and restarts the injection schedule. Patients therapy will continue provided they are well enough to receive treatment. Even if the study falls short at PFS, they should be able to make up the difference on survival for those false progression patients. What I'm not sure about is whether it will be enough to make up for I perceive will be a potentially statistically-short PFS due to RANO criteria. I'm not blind to the fact that their placebo arm will do well with the same inclusion criteria, as advances in standard of care will have those patients naturally living longer. But eventually those advantages will run out - they certainly do not last an average of 27 months. So yes, I'm confident and convinced that it is doing "something" for all GBM patients on the overall survival front. My hope is there is a decent survival difference between the treatment arms. Crossover certainly confounds it some. I'm invested because yes, at the end of the day, I truly believe the vaccine is helping patients; it's synergistic with chemotherapy and it's contributes to patients longer tail survival if they receive it early in their treatment. And there is a decent chance for statistical success. I hope that explains my viewpoint. GLTA
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
