InvestorsHub Logo

Doc logic

03/18/24 4:17 PM

#679505 RE: iclight #679492

iclight,

My post was in regard to macrophage interference with immune response and how that is related to L’s need for help but Direct, properly administered, needs none. This topic is definitely related to both treatments and once again demonstrates your lack of understanding the science. You need to stick to the script.
L is the weaker version on purpose with regard to immune response within the brain where swelling is an issue. Controlled immune response is essential with this treatment alone. Now if you want to add something that shrinks the tumor but has not proven itself able to eradicate it then great, if it is safe and there is synergy. The goal is still to eradicate the cancer not just shrink tumors for a while.
It’s also important to use a control arm that does not have an active treatment being used which at least two non L trials had to consider as having had happened and which NWBO was basically placed into the situation of with crossover being offered to patients and regulator desire for this to happen. Turns out that was best for the patients but made the trial more difficult to get adequate measures for treatment effect but is allowed for and has been in the exceptions to adequate and well controlled trials as something to be done before unblinding. Best wishes.

Reefrad

03/18/24 4:41 PM

#679511 RE: iclight #679492

Was their success published in jama?

Minor detail right?

theorysuit

03/18/24 8:28 PM

#679534 RE: iclight #679492

But the pumpers argue that it would be unethical to not give patients an unproven drug. Lmfao. That's why you run a double blind trial.....to prove that is does work. Their arguments are lame af. Unethical....smfh. Now you have a poorly designed trial with dirty af data. A journal folks doesn't make it any better or guarantee approval. Sorry it doesn't work that way unfortunately....you will learn soon enough. LP going to string you along and find the next excuse to distract you all.