flip, I agree with you that this trial is headed for a smashing success for all the reasons you presented and apparently you and longfellow
believe that the overrepresentation of Treatment patients was greatly responsible for the longevity of the last group of patients (and so do I).
In addition you have attributed some of the success of the last group of patients to the utilization of ALA during surgery whereas senti has pointed to TFF as as a possible tool that enhanced the survival capacity of the last one third of the trial.
Be that as it may. however, I am still wondering why the authors had to make a statement emphasizing that there was no meaningful difference in patient survival capacity throughout the trial. I have not seen such a statement in other publications of trial results and am still wondering
why it was included. That this statement was not repeated in the SNO update does not equal a retraction. Yes, by that time (November 2018), everyone could see the superior survival capacity of the last 108 but it was ignored in the SNO update and I believe that this was done for a reason so as to not elicit questions that may be used by a hungry wolfpack, eager to question the trial's uniformity so as to damage the trial and the company.
It is logical that by August 2015 they knew that utilizing DCVax-L, ALA for surgery and perhaps TFF for leukapharesis, extended and in some cases saved more lives and their ethical duty was to utilize these tools to save the patients.
I believe that doing so helped patients and in the long run, did not at all damage the integrity of the trial. However, sometimes good news has to be kept under wraps so as not to give the AF's of this world, the opportunity to capsize the boat.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
