Apparently a lot of people have sold on Adam Feurerstein's article for The Street. He says that IMUC's excellent results aren't meaningful because they didn't use a control group who only received a placebo.
That might be true if you're testing a drug for something like the flu or back-pain, situations where many people get well spontaneously. But with cancer in general, and especially brain cancer, patients simply do not get well spontaneously. If patient's survival rate after taking the drug is better than the historical average, then the results are significant. The de facto "control group" is everything we know about the survival rates of people who have this form of cancer, and there is in fact a lot of information in this regard. As IMUC goes to the next level of testing, they will probably start including a control group in their testing, but for initial tests it's not necessary.
Agree this a very dumb comment by this analyst.As an ex drug researcher I know that in cases like glioblastoma for which there is no cure, survival of more than one year without drug intervention is exceptional.Immunocellular has shown survival benefits for multiple patients exceeding one year and in some cases two years.Clinically this is extremely significant and will result, I predict in fast track designation from the FDA without the need to perform double blind crossover studies which would be required without this designation.This means in practice that FDA approval can be obtained on a limited number of patients.I believe that based on the data published so far an FDA filing cannot be to far off .Eric L
We're down because one doesn't get money for free! Should we believe that no games will be played (The Street.com,etc) Last week they posted glowing testimony on IMUC now they are giving an opposing view to subscribers that is somewhat critical. Hey, you gotta keep the honest people honest. Fear & Greed! Fear & Greed! I believe the old school investors here know that their technology will succeed. John Hopkins thinks they will succeed as well, else they wouldn't have sold their proprietary biotechnology to IMUC. Same goes for the University of Pennsylvania. Nowadays, if you can't handle the games in the overall mkts. you'd best buy bonds. My opinion!
I think the issue is that the patients where "hand picked". Most likely post-op...I believe a clinician could and probably would cherry pick the patients in this process. The ones that already have the best "chances" of survival. This pre-skews the survival rate in favor of a longer term. I am still long....but it's all a gamble until we have phase II trial results in the bag.
What facts are you basing this on? If "cherry picking" what would the motivation be to pick the ones most likely to recover, it makes no sense to me. Wouldn't you pick the ones with the worst prognosis to determine what effect the drug is having? What would be the point of subjecting a healthy or fully recovering patient to experimental therapy? Again, what you are saying makes no sense.