InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

flipper44

02/07/17 12:14 PM

#100844 RE: Doktornolittle #100839

Well articulated Dok.

....However, while there is a strong need to nail down progression before crossover, there is even a stronger need for an effective treatment for GBM. I would argue that however messy, if post analysis of progression using a new and much improved method, based on existing MRI scans, reveals remarkable efficacy, then I don't think they could ignore that. Shrugging formalities is dangerous in part because the statistics underlying those formalities is not transparent to most. But if people that do understand the basis for those formalities can see that they are in this case blocking the approval of an effective therapy... then they should have the power to push a drug through to the point of being profitable for a company to produce so as to move to confirmation. And that is what various early approval modalities are all about. Including one that has been talked about here recently and may well be currently under review. I will not say much more until Sis gets in.

The FDA is absolutely obligated to prevent another disastrous Thalidomide indication from happening, as are all regulatory agencies around the world. But this is certainly not another thalidomide, so non-linear thought is likely allowed here, even if NWBO did not say, "Mother May I" before curing brain cancer. -- Dok

icon url

Doc logic

02/08/17 2:05 PM

#101220 RE: Doktornolittle #100839

Doktornolittle,

Agreed. FDA won't stand in the way of anything that reasonably demonstrates the ability to provide added benefit over SOC especially if they strongly suspect synergies between various treatment types are likely. Best wishes.