News Focus
News Focus
icon url

dennisdave

11/03/24 4:38 PM

#730040 RE: theorysuit #730037

you would start to wonder right...
icon url

RobotDroid

11/03/24 4:53 PM

#730046 RE: theorysuit #730037

Thats because mute inept nonmanagement keeps bad news from SH.
icon url

Hopeforthefuture3

11/03/24 5:52 PM

#730051 RE: theorysuit #730037

I think you are totally correct but at least it now makes sense and I will quit posting that they should have applied to fda. My hope is the UK will be OK with it and that will provide adequate revenue to continue perhaps with a new trial or get the interest of a major pharma and partner
icon url

learningcurve2020

11/03/24 6:43 PM

#730056 RE: theorysuit #730037

It was a long time ago so many trials for pulling data didn't even exist back then, so I doubt the conversation with EC's ever even got that far.  

Someone posted here almost seven years ago something that always made the most sense to me ( below). And, on top of it we always knew the FDA won't accept EC's without patient level data.  The FDA probabaly told her to collect the data and do another trial never expecting LP would go around them with MHRA instead which, at the time, was overseen by the EMA.  

>>Sure, the hold was placed after DMC members alerted FDA to PFS futility. This was after they alerted the sponsor who insisted it continue. The procedure is invasive (leuk) so FDA did it to protect the public. The hold was lifted in effect when the sponsor asked FDA to if they called enrollment "complete" at 331. They wanted to alleve public perception for those still in the trial that had already had vaccine made and wouldn't be subjected to any fur-ther leuk. FDA allowed it.


icon url

iclight

11/04/24 8:23 AM

#730148 RE: theorysuit #730037

It's not that they "didn't reveal". They buried it. I tried 2 FOIA requests on the meeting with the FDA when the endpoint changed and both were denied.