I know what you mean about the Triozzi study.
I must be dense, because each time I read it, I discover something new.
For instance, Patient #6. He had 25% tumor regression at week 4. He also had a response in every other category, making him technically the second best responder if 25% tumor regression had been the cut off point.
Also, we are talking about patients that only had normally 2 weeks until the tumors were removed. A couple had 4 weeks until their tumor was removed. And one had 6 weeks.
Think about that….
If you look at the other responses and indicators, it looks like they really might have had an 80% response rate had they simply waited long enough.
How many studies do you know that do not bother to tell us patient outcomes no later than 2 to 6 weeks after treatment?
Now, think about what NWBO has been saying. It believes most if not all tumor regression will start to be see "within a few months."
It is possible -- I'm not saying it happened -- that even with an inferior product, Triozzi may have seen tumor regression in 100% of his patients had he waited "a few months."
I'm not casting criticism on the brilliant work of Triozzi, he simply performed the pilot study the way it was designed.
Now I must start a new post, unless someone else has, because I just noticed NWBO is going to present at a biotech conference on January 13, 2014!