News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Arby2000

03/04/24 4:17 PM

#676138 RE: Nemesis18 #676136

In combination with your earlier post that the trial wasn't the noble effort it is made out to be, are you insinuating that the trial was 'selecting' non-GBM patients and presenting them as GBM and then using their longevity to skew the trial results? Hoo boy. You better have a lot of data to defend that position.
icon url

Opdoc64

03/04/24 4:18 PM

#676141 RE: Nemesis18 #676136

So you had surgery and were thought to have a GBM. You underwent standard of care chemoradiotherapy and your first post radiation scan looked good (so kudos to your surgeon and oncologists).

In the trial, patients underwent informed consent for surgery and tissue collection, then for leukapheresis and then enrolled and began vaccine only if : 1) the vaccine could be made, 2) no sign of tumor progression on the post radiation scan, and 3) the pathology was verified (by WHO CNS 2007 third edition criteria) as GBM by that era's standard.

In addition, patient and investigators could opt out before treatment with vaccine began.

So ... there are many selection points and times people can exit the trial. Up to 5-10% of "GBMs" of that era were classified as GBM then which would not be today (Science moves on ... weird, huh?).

So I am trying to understand your claims against the company (while congratulating you on your good fortune and health).
icon url

Springbok80

03/04/24 5:08 PM

#676175 RE: Nemesis18 #676136

17 posts in a day...and just become an Ihub poster today...Blocked.