News Focus
News Focus
icon url

CherryTree1

01/16/23 6:05 AM

#559806 RE: HyGro #559804

This is all Complete Bullshit . . . for example take this one:

No FDA partial hold issue identified,


Please tell us what FDA issue would make any difference whatsoever in the results?
Again for example if the FDA at the time had said they believe the trial is futile it would have made no difference since it is now know it wasn't. There is not reason to call this out in the paper other than to try to paint the FDA in a bad light and why when we are working on approval want to do that?
All your allegations are bullshit.
Bullish
Bullish
icon url

biosectinvestor

01/16/23 9:49 AM

#559816 RE: HyGro #559804

It’s irrelevant and I believe the reasons are given. It was not an actual “halt”, it was a partial halt. The trial is short patients who turned out to be placebo patients. Further, because if the crossover the placebo arm was not fit for purpose, hence the use of an external placebo arm. It’s all basically there, they just didn’t spell it out for you as there was no reason to do so.

Nothing is missing. And the reality is, there would be no reason to do so, and if this was BP, they’d not do so either. There was never a safety issue, there was not apparently a futility recommendation, likely because of the survival data. Had there been, that would have had to have been revealed I expect. Hence the banging and accusations and claims and complaints and even lost lawsuits (Lerner, a lawsuit lost by shorts claiming a futility recommendation, effectively and trying to get it revealed, which they lost).

The reality is that shorts have wanted and been waiting for a revelation of something that likely never happened but that they and AF speculated happened and for all of these years they have been trying to bash the doors, like hungry wolves, in to get a revelation of something that apparently never happened.
icon url

Roman516

01/16/23 9:54 AM

#559818 RE: HyGro #559804

You mean the outstanding OS data results, thanks for the update.
icon url

SkyLimit2022

01/16/23 12:06 PM

#559845 RE: HyGro #559804

How could HyGro possibly have access to more information than the JAMA physicians?

Nothing is hidden or secret if HyGro knows about it. Explore all the supplements attached to the JAMA publication.

Your statements are 100% verifiably false. It is documented and published. PFS and the original trial protocol were covered extensively in the independent peer review. Furthermore, the implications of pseudo-progression are well-documented in the documents submitted to the JAMA peer-review, and pseudo is well-documented in the medical literature in general.

If you want to learn about the original trial protocol all those years ago, consult JAMA and the peer review documents that JAMA has published and made available worldwide. The links are included on the DCVax-L P3 peer review page at the JAMA Oncology website linked below.



https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2798847




https://ceoworld.biz/2022/04/05/top-5-medical-journals-in-the-world-everyone-should-know-about/

The statistical analysis plan was approved by the regulators. Ashkan is a careful and precise brain surgeon—listen to his words:

Dr. Ashkan said this in June 2022. Skip to timestamp 14:55 of the ASCO video.




Dr. Ashkan was the chief investigator of the murcidencel trial for patients in Europe. At King’s College in London, Ashkan is the lead clinician for neuro-oncology and the chair of the King’s Neurosciences Clinical Trial Unit. He is a world-renowned cancer trial expert. A few years ago, Professor Ashkan was named the UK Clinician of the Year by The Brain Tumour Charity. Additionally, Ashkan serves as an advisor to the U.K. government.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/keyoumars-ashkan




https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/oncology/0/coi220066supp1_prod_1668698380.81699.pdf?Expires=1676780989&Signature=I5OpHDA5H3FIhuKxdijPEWnsIIQq5zwNcKvqL6P5Rjy8uumxSPgPb6sc1Uhl2Wd5mP9GTcsZoXzSlU8Pf2pclbrBsWmZiTnkWo0zhvIql90z~mj5MXSYPZ3gQ0~PQBiPDuTlDqz4xMimD33hw45NPJ6B6oRoWYMxsCI-i6Rb3ZSi3g6Iq5~c~Y8QK5CwrPjd3cnN8qcGvERrm0dDqKfRtDYbWj84UsmsdXKw260NwhXHLJjZPEn2EkM3L~ClimScT7ASS9Tcpkoz8Ttw7sf4fe6Iei-Y6hdgg1tY~Tx~zYMftcTOSNQrE3bcxfVcfL7ID0jE5zCGgf1DO9pbbhfrUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA

Contact JAMA: jamaonc@jamanetwork.org


Bullish
Bullish
icon url

dstock07734

01/16/23 2:03 PM

#559872 RE: HyGro #559804

FDA partial hold is not a big deal. Any patients died of side-effects from DcVax-L? How many patients had severe adverse effects? If everything was as bad as you depicted, FDA would not approve this trial.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04201873?cond=glioblastoma+%2B+dendritic&draw=2&rank=24
or stop this trial.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02146066?cond=dendritic+cell+%2B+expanded&draw=2&rank=1

Maybe read the JAMA paper again from different angle. It is not an editorial article. It is a peer-review journal paper written by over 70 researchers who are among the most brilliant in their field. It is worth ruminating.