OK RK, here goes my reply to you.
First you note that the patients in the direct trial were sick, 1-6 prior treatments (median 2). But they had far less prior treatments than those from the Weler study, 0-17 with median 4. Also the Wheler study was older 58 vs 54. Number of prior treatments corrolates strongly (p<.0001 in wheler to OS).
Second, do you think other studies do not have similar issues in salvage settings? The Wheler meta study certainly has many such early failures included.
But the real point is, do you realize how absurd it is to run a trial and present results saying the best 1/3 lived longer than expected for teh average patient? This would be true of virtually any study ever run.
It is fine for a trial such as this to have no real efficacy data. But it was NWBO who tried to pretend otherwise via slide 21.
BTW, as a side note I am glad they have confirmed that patients with more robust immune systems survive longer. This is really big news that should be repeated, as nobody else knows this.