InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

Rkmatters

09/22/16 4:56 PM

#75656 RE: Rkmatters #75653

Adam,

It was a "genius" question. In no way did I acknowledge your brilliance. But if you must know, I do think you're "street" smart. When it comes to the "sciences" I think you have major shortcomings. You have a hard time separating the company from the science. They are different.
icon url

pgsd

09/22/16 5:18 PM

#75668 RE: Rkmatters #75653

Good post.
icon url

john1045

09/22/16 7:03 PM

#75692 RE: Rkmatters #75653

RK, great post on facts fr! om the DCVax Direct Trial!
icon url

hopefulsurgonc

09/22/16 7:49 PM

#75699 RE: Rkmatters #75653

Thx for the reply:)
icon url

exwannabe

09/22/16 7:59 PM

#75700 RE: Rkmatters #75653

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.