Replies to post #32886 on Cel Sci Corporation (CVM)

[The_Q]

You are a short

The lack of information on survival?

As if the idmc didn’t see the deaths as enough information?

What the hell else information would they have or need to assume it’s got a chance of success or not. Their job isn’t to predetermine for us, it’s to say there’s a chance. It’s why Fosco, if I recall correctly, says it’s either north of 21% or right at 11%, the idmc cut the edge the whole time. The worse than ten percent ship sailed by everyone’s estimates in January 2020 or earlier

[Fosco1]

Thanks for interesting link

I think Soxrate is asking good questions, but lacks a bit of knowledge of the trial. Furthermore he is striking a sensitive nerve in Geert who has been attacked by false arguments put forward by shorts for years.

1) As for why not attack the Mestastatic cancer field, is very relevant question, as the trial would have been much faster. I guess that CEl SCI did not chose the long way for pure masochistic reasons. Inhibitors have chosen this way, but inhibitor work very differently (removing barriers that prevent to kill the tumor) whereas MK stimulates the immune system. Not being a scientist on this field I speculate that it is likely that stimulating a weak system will not improve the outcome, wherease removing barriers still offer better survival, even for a weak immune system

2) I do not agree with the IDMC comment. "IDMC advise not to stop your trail well after the expected median survival doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ve got much better survival from your drug. It purely means there is not enough survival signal of benefit or toxicity to be sure either way of benefit or futility" : IDMC had the means to stop the trial in April, and probably in October (see my blog in SA). Soxrate ignores this for lack of DD.

3) It is likely that inclusion criteria implies better than SEER survival in SOC group. How much better is the key question, doubling median survival would be very surprising

Fosco