Ultraz2, no one could know if PFS had failed if they didn't know who was treatment and who was control.
Additionally, does PFS fail if there is a false progression, and then the same patient indicating false progression turns around and lives over 36 months?
Or...
Does PFS fail if there is progression (let's not call it false), and then turns around and lives one 36 months?
The only issue that I can see here is that PFS was likely being diagnosed for many treatment patients when, in fact, they had not progressed.
So do you consider that a failure?
First of all, PFS is a failure when the treatment arm doesn't outperform the control arm.
But really, what is "outperform"?
And with all the realizations being made that diagnosis of progression in immunotherapies is outdated, and that you can't apply the same measurements that you would for chemotherapy treatments, how can one determine if treatment has outperformed control unless you apply the updated criteria to the measurement?
So... if the company thought there was an issue with the diagnosis of progression in the DCVax-L trial, should they announce that the trial is a failure at that time?
I mean, if you'll forgive my saying so, but that seems ludicrous.
First of all, when they may have been beginning to see a potential issue - a problem (I'd be willing to call it that), it was likely in the summer of 2015. Well they were still enrolling patients into the trial. Had they announced, as you suggest, that the trial was a failure (which it obviously was not - they probably still had around 60 to 70 patients who had just enrolled or were still to enroll! - Oh, and by the way, it's those later enrolled patients that seem to be doing even better than the first group), those patients would have pulled out of the trial, and guess what? They'd likely all be dead.
So please... you surely must see that your suggestion is NOT in keeping with how a randomized, blinded clinical trial should be conducted.
Investors are along for the ride here. They company can't make decisions that are bad for the patients and bad for the trial because the inquiring minds of nvestors want to know something.
Of course, now that the trial has reached the last injection,
now that 3 years have passed since that investigation began,
now that all the lawsuits are behind us,
now that the journal has finally been published,
now that the 2018 blinded update has been provided by Dr. Liau,
and now that they have a large war chest upon which to draw from to presumably:
complete the trial,
begin other trials,
I'd like to see:
conference calls and public updates begin.
And, when one assembles a "war chest",
one assumes it is presumably to go to "war"...
and I'd like to see that begin as well.
Because the last 3 years before the war chest AND the last two weeks of December have felt very much like a one-sided war by the bears to me
(you only have to look at the share price and you'll see who's been winning that war),
and I'd like to see the company offense in this war begin.
In fact, sometimes it feels like the only ones publicly taking on the other side are those of us longs on these freaking boards and twitter.
And I, for one, after 7200 posts here, am frankly getting a bit tired of it.
And with double that for flipper, I can only imagine that he is as well.
A bit of help with the war part would be much appreciated.
Market Data 
Markets 
