News Focus
News Focus
icon url

HappyLibrarian

12/16/23 1:34 PM

#656466 RE: exwannabe #656462

While we normally disagree on the science and I don’t like shorts any more than I like shills or traders, I’d be curious to see if anyone can refute this with evidence instead of just attacking you.

If they attack you without addressing your point it indicates you are probably right because this is not an issue that has been endlessly discussed as the trial data has so there is no excuse to just say ‘asked and answered’ or use the ‘I have no proof (I’m not here to educate you)’ line.
icon url

Dr Bala

12/16/23 1:35 PM

#656467 RE: exwannabe #656462

Instead of asking these banal questions, the fudster needs to understand the JAMA results. The fudster never demonstrated an understanding of the trial results in any of his posts. If he gets to understand the results, then he would understand the future potential. Until that time, the fudster's confusion persists and he would be asking these kinds of nonsensical hypothetical questions.
icon url

dennisdave

12/16/23 2:05 PM

#656481 RE: exwannabe #656462

Or maybe they basically just have nearly no sales despite the hype. And if so, why?

They have very little sales. The explanation for this is simple. Only a very small percentage of patients can afford DCVAXL (and crowdfunding will only get a happy few that far) and the second reason is that MDs will not refer patients to non-approved drugs.
icon url

iclight

12/17/23 11:23 AM

#656739 RE: exwannabe #656462

Or maybe they basically just have nearly no sales despite the hype. And if so, why?



I assume that was rhetorical.

But….

Because all GBM patients have oncologists, the majority of whom are not involved with this trial and these oncologists, just like all the ones who have commented on the data, know the trial didn’t prove efficacy and costs $250k minimum.