As usual, the cultist go back to the past to argue the failures of the present. Blah balh that does not mean shit. The stock is .26, and going to tank further this week. You koolaid consumers never ever address the failure of inept mute nonmanagement, and the lies that have been told over the years. But keep refering to a now old write up that actually tanked the stock more. Too funny and ignorantly stupid and sad.
Sparkling, not my opinion it is what fda told management officer of mimivax with similar results on gbm that they could use external controls if they had matched patient level data but if not must have control group so their next trial is randomized 3 to 2. The number of authors on the jama paper does not matter to fda
No further trials will be necessary or are needed.
Yep this trial clearly showed DCVax does nothing.
The MHRA certainly has compared the interim data including placebo patients and the final data with placebo patients removed and noted that at best DCVax does nothing.
All NWBO has to do is release the complete data set for those who never received DCVax and compare it to the ECA. They won't. Because even those who never received DCVax would beat the ECA. They were healthier to begin with because of extent of resection.
The Journal Article endorsed by 73 coauthors indicates statistical significance. Your opinion is just that. Your opinion. The 73 other qualified opinions are qualified opinions. No further trials will be necessary or are needed.
That the FDA told MimiVax (Roswell Park) that they would need patient level data for the ECA in their planned SurVaxM P3 is a fact.
That the 73 authors stated a limitation of the DCVax-L P3 was lack of patient level data on the ECA is a fact.
Anybody can have an opinion on if the above two facts can present a risk that the FDA would require another trial. But with the above two facts anybody not seeing some risk is living in a very cold climate.