InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

biosectinvestor

12/08/22 3:28 PM

#545975 RE: Dan88 #545965

Well said.

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.
icon url

meirluc

12/08/22 4:27 PM

#546010 RE: Dan88 #545965

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.
Bullish
Bullish
icon url

CherryTree1

12/08/22 6:25 PM

#546079 RE: Dan88 #545965

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:

The results are intriguing; yet, it remains to be demonstrated that the effect observed is truly due to DCVax rather than a mere reflection of patient selection.


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.
Bullish
Bullish