Lots of prima donnas in medicine and they all come out to prance about and make everyone look at them in times like this, I think especially when it is makes vs females, maybe some feelings that are about feeling kind if vulnerable. It kind of feels like a lot of people who want to be seen as being cutting edge practitioners are quite jealous right now and acting out in unflattering ways to themselves.
Beside's DR. Stupp's intent to ignore/downplay DCVax-L's impressive safety profile and unprecedented efficacy for rGBM patients, he also forgot to mention that this vaccine is beneficial for a substantial number of unmethylated GBM patients. According to the NYAS presentation, of 131 unmethylated GBM patients 8 (6.1%) survived for 5(+) years. In contrast, the 5 year survival capacity for unmethylated GBM patients in the ECA's was non existent and I doubt that it was much better in helmet treated patients.
You were too polite to the Stupp One has to ask what is his motivation for the article. He pretends to be a DVAX advocate while simultaneously trying to raise fear uncertainty and doubt. For example when he alleges this:
OK there has been a lot of detailed analysis to make the external control group match the DCVAX patients as close as possible. Where exactly was this bridge so severely lacking that is would render the trial invalid? I don't see it IMHO. How would one explain the long tail survivors based on patient selection? If all of these patients had GBM there is no biased patient selection that could explain the long survivor tail.