Below is an actual back and forth I had with Adam Feuerstein. As you can tell from the exchange he knows nothing about the subject that he's addressing and would not answer my quetion.Pretty funny stuff. He taunted me to post it on the message board so here it is.
Can you tell me some specifics on DCVax?
I can tell that your a wanna be
scientist, maybe even a wanna be
doctor, but I'd like to test and see
how much you really know????
Also, aren't you the same person who
bashed DNDN. You seem familiar. Booyah!
you should post your email on the yahoo message board, if you haven't already. it will impress your buddies.
BTW Feurerstein is simply wrogn when he say OS must be doble blinded--From the fda webstie Guide to the IndustryTable 1. A Comparison of Important Cancer Approval Endpoints
Endpoint Study Design Advantages Disadvantages
Survival • Randomized
• BLINDING NOT
measure of benefit
• Easily measured
• May involve larger studies
• May be affected by
• Includes noncancer deaths
Sorry about the format
Do any of YOU know what you are talking about? You took some information off of the FDA website that is very much out of context. This whole board is going off the deep end here and all of these posts are arguing scientific terms without understanding the concepts behind the terms. This is like watching 2nd graders arguing on the playground. Forget about the "double-blind" method of drug study, who has a competing therapy, how much funding is coming from some company that no one really knows anything about and what price the stock is posting on any given day of the week. Does the therapy work? NO. Also, their reports of their studies are horribly inept and there are serious questions about presentation of their results. This is information taken directly from NWB's website:
"84% of patients who received DCVax(R)-Brain in these trials have so far lived longer than the median survival of 14.6 months under standard of care"
Now, does that mean lived longer than other people up to that point, or lived longer because of DCVax? It is obviously not clear. In addition to this, 84% of 19 people is 15.96 people which is way to small of a study set for compelling results and NWB probably should not be broadcasting that they are proud of this--peer review is extremely vicious and unforgiving. Also, the patients were receiving chemotherapy at the same time--which is what "concurrent" therapy means. As of May of this year they still only have 33 out of 240 potential study entrants for DCVax-Brain and this is only a Phase II trial! There is just too much bad science and sloppy management here to warrant any serious faith in this company... they just dropped the ball too many times and this "next time is gonna be so much better" modus operandi has been way overused. How much punishment do you want to take before you call it a day? The bid/ask spread is ridiculous and I'll be extremely fortunate if I break even when I dump this train wreck. You all can keep arguing useless points but it won't help.