News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Dr Bala

12/07/22 11:34 PM

#545606 RE: HyGro #545604

A confounded nonsensical post.
icon url

SkyLimit2022

12/07/22 11:40 PM

#545608 RE: HyGro #545604

Thanks for posting. I recommend including credible source links to support your opinions.









https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2798847
Bullish
Bullish
icon url

X Master

12/07/22 11:41 PM

#545609 RE: HyGro #545604

Wow Hydro you figured something out that 2,000 doctors at SNO were apparently unable conceive! Amazing!
Bullish
Bullish
icon url

biosectinvestor

12/08/22 12:08 AM

#545615 RE: HyGro #545604

When you go off on this double dosing nonsense, I have to say, it shows absolute unfamiliarity with the trial and basics. It is entertaining though.
icon url

dr_lowenstein

12/08/22 12:16 AM

#545618 RE: HyGro #545604

Thanks Hygro. Good to have a real credible source like you
icon url

CrashOverride

12/08/22 12:23 AM

#545619 RE: HyGro #545604

Such bullshit.
icon url

QL300

12/08/22 1:08 AM

#545629 RE: HyGro #545604

If it doesn’t work, why does it matter if they took 1, 2 or 10 doses? Is this your way of admitting it works?
icon url

survivor1x

12/08/22 1:28 AM

#545635 RE: HyGro #545604

So you agree DCVaX wiorks better the more doses you receive. I think they showed that in the direct trial.

Explain the 25 alive at 5 years. Not an estimate. Many were older or mesenchymal which is a worse prognosis. They shouldnt be here but here they are. So you can just stop saying DCVAX doesnt work. It's obvious in spite of the trial confoundments. Show me a trIal where all participents within the trial are 100% the same both in nature and nurture. You cant. There are zero cancer trials particularly in solid tumors that are 100% exact. People are gentically diffetent and so are solid tumors themselves. The survival differences cannot be explained by chance alone. Therefore DCVAX statistically works. Period.