Excellent historical and practical detail. I think no trial survives this kind of absolutist critique that some false purists are claiming should apply. I agree it is irresponsible of him and his co-author and I hope some doctors will make a substantial reply, though that may not happen.
But this is a very good reply and substantiates my sense of it too that it was fundamentally a dishonest critique, and also completely impractical and ridiculous in it’s impracticality.
But you have brought out further points and expressed the critique far more cogently.
This could prove to be very useful to Northwest Biotherapeutics investors. I've never lifted myself to regulator status so fast in my entire life. Ready to take over for the SEC
teeeheheeeeee :)))
SUPER BULLISH AT NWBO BLUECHIPS ARE NOW REDCHIPS AAPL TO FALL THATS WHAT APPLES DO
Flip as always, this is a much more elegant response than many. Bottom line he is an idiot and you can sugar coat it, but he is still an idiot and needs to retire.
In other words, by todays standards, many did not have GBM (and had a much more favorable prognosis) and a huge proportion may have been methylated mgmt (a more favorable prognosis)
Something definitely seems wonky about the original Stupp trial based on the subsequent data after approval as shown in the 2009 follow up you mention. Going from 12.1% four year survival to 2% (table 4 in link below) -- feels like there might have been a fox in the henhouse, maybe even more than some of the points you make here.
“Stupp Protocol” will be dead, unused, and more or less forgotten within a few year’s time. Hate to say it, but it looks like that’s their primary concern.