News Focus
News Focus
icon url

The Danish Dude

10/23/22 4:52 PM

#524182 RE: HappyLibrarian #524177

Poorly written or poorly understood?

The inefficiency text is clearly coupled to Optune. The heading is not in any way directed at DCVax-L.

You see the clear distinction when it is not quoted, but with the headline.

So no. Not poorly written :-d

icon url

Horseb4CarT

10/23/22 4:57 PM

#524186 RE: HappyLibrarian #524177

I took the insufficient evidence of efficacy against the TTF device since the article stated DCVax ph3 trial results were still pending and thus the efficacy was to be established.
icon url

hoffmann6383

10/23/22 4:59 PM

#524187 RE: HappyLibrarian #524177

Nonsense. Clearly the NICE discussion is about Optune.
icon url

voloda69

10/23/22 6:32 PM

#524209 RE: HappyLibrarian #524177

Really?
Take a look at this then…
(Credit to RideorDie ag stockstwits)

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0b9KRrjYP4gw4d14ogAvpc4nQ
icon url

Doc logic

10/24/22 2:38 PM

#524422 RE: HappyLibrarian #524177

HappyLibrarian,

The original article is broken up badly but the $250,000 being raised seems to be for L. Best wishes.
icon url

Flexroy

10/24/22 3:02 PM

#524436 RE: HappyLibrarian #524177

It was poorly written. Classic sound biting and not enough effort to establish context. Forcing the reader to be an apologist for the writer.

BUT here is further context. Clearly they are hoping for DCVax