We keep on hearing from one of you that Thermodox has increased overall survival 66%. This is absolute nonsense.
I am not a statistician, but the poster does not seem to understand what a hazard ratio is. From Wikipedia:
"A statistically important, but practically insignificant effect can produce a large hazard ratio, e.g. a treatment increasing the number of one-year survivors in a population from one in 10,000 to one in 1,000 has a hazard ratio of 10. It is unlikely that such a treatment would have had much impact on the median endpoint time ratio, which likely would have been close to unity, i.e. mortality was largely the same regardless of group membership and clinically insignificant."
From the study by Lencioni and Poon: "The Hazard Ratios reported above should be viewed with caution since they are not statistically significant and the HEAT Study has not reached its median point for Overall Survival analysis. Celsion will continue following all patients enrolled in the HEAT Study to the secondary endpoint, Overall Survival, and update its subgroup analysis based on RFA heating duration."
In short -- taking all this information today -- if a study has not even reached its median point for analysis, the results can seen to be promising but too early to tell.
I'm not sure that you have enough knowledge to tell me why my post is wrong. This view is suggested by the fact that you can't address my point. While I feel bad for your inability there, in the end it is your issue, not mind.