InvestorsHub Logo

ilovetech

11/29/23 8:00 PM

#651874 RE: GermanCol #651871

Hey Ex, GermanCol has your number. Please indulge us with something literate.

The Danish Dude

11/30/23 2:16 AM

#651933 RE: GermanCol #651871

Thanks for making ex wiser. 🙏 Such a Sisyphusian task.

Ex got quiet. :)



Only until the evidence is on page 2 :)

Springbok80

11/30/23 7:17 AM

#651953 RE: GermanCol #651871

Methinks Ex is getting his briefings from sources which have a vested interest in trying to place the DCVAX-L trial in the worst light they can, because they are involved in other trials ref GMB...the truth will appear upon discovery, and when it does he and his ilk will be well and truly fried.

exwannabe

11/30/23 12:19 PM

#652043 RE: GermanCol #651871

The endpoint of OS for 232 vs 99 is still a secondary endpoint of the trial and certainly has meaning. One would expect that if -L works then the 232 live (numerically) longer than the 99 despite the crossover.

Of course the 232 vs 32 means nothing.

OS in early stage cancer is almost always a confounded by subsequent treatment (often including the investigational drug tself as often already approved in later lines). This is just something that trials live with. Nobody keeps pointing out how often all those CI front line trials fail OS with placebo patients using the CI post progression.

There is no reason not to publish the endpoint just because it is confounded.

Further, it would hugely positive. if even close to stat sig. Why would they not be shouting t out?

On the LTFU issue, you still have issues. Despite what you and flipper assert, finding censors does not have to lower the OS. It could go either way depending on how long the lived after the censor. If the censors were unbiased and random they would have no effect. True, there likely is some bias. But you still are talking a fairly minor effect from the few found LTFUs. More on the numbers on a post later.

flipper44

11/30/23 11:56 PM

#652179 RE: GermanCol #651871

There are many powerful and correct insights in your post and the older post it references. In particular, as AE Kuster also pointed out, your point that ECA did not have left censors excluded but DCVax-l’s treatment group had no left censors was mind expanding. I only understand the mathematics of science organically and slowly (fortunately I’ve been around awhile), but I think we are on the same wavelength here. Your confidence is warranted.