News Focus
News Focus
icon url

dennisdave

05/13/25 2:22 PM

#767549 RE: Galzus Research #767542

Did I say it was illegal? Did I say neurology?

yes you did

Show me another pivotal trial in oncology that successfully pivoted off its originally designed primary endpoint, reported a secondary endpoint instead, and then got approval

you are incorrectly confounding your own assertions, genius. You are all over the place, one has nothing todo with the other. Its like stating that ice skaters work out less in the gym than football players, which is the reason that ice skaters make less money on average. All over the place. Stitching two claims that are both BS with one another, that have zero to do with each other. You are absolutely biotech clueless, convict.
icon url

FeMike

05/13/25 3:31 PM

#767581 RE: Galzus Research #767542

Show me another pivotal trial in oncology that successfully pivoted off its originally designed primary endpoint, reported a secondary endpoint instead, and then got approval.



I’ll do you one better than just oncology in general, of which there are many examples.

It’s been done for GBM.

That you don’t know that treatments have been approved based on secondary endpoints alone is quite telling.
icon url

biosectinvestor

05/13/25 6:02 PM

#767619 RE: Galzus Research #767542

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about if this is your position. This happens not infrequently. I did the research a few years ago. Not sure I can find it quuckly but you do see a variety of drugs that are well known where they did not do well initially, and even got approved on other criteria, including your favorite, I believe, Optune, which failed its initial trial and did not have a true placebo. Now that does not mean you won’t come up with further excuses for your preferences and why you must be here all day every day undermining views of DCVax-L, but that is the reality.