Lookin for upside I am looking for your INTELLIGENCE. It is not about release of information, vis a vis open trial, It is AGAIN, the data has not reach a point of what MD ANDERSON (ooh! they must be deceptive) Clinical meaningful significance to be analyzed to make a determination as to the interim results
The reason she has not released another retort yet is in part she was A) Reprimanded. We know that as fact, by MD Anderson. SO therefore, what is she going to say, Data was really extraordinary but let me make it clear nothing was analyzed." In other words LINDA F simply cannot say, at an early stage without saying DATA NOT YET clinically reviewed by trial investigators. Okay that is one thing. The other is tied to a flood of liability suits that are waiting for her to do a secondary, sooner than later to therefore more impressively make the cases as the reason behind her original release. She is in a damn difficult situation. Bible please. Let's read from Timothy
It certainly seems so. EOM
Are you JOKING?! The idiocy of this board is benumbs the mind and bedazzles the imagination. You mean, as in "Let's be friend's, what is going on here?" They are NOT partners! LOL They are the clinical facility conducting the trial. Partner? Partner?! Are you joking. They had an obligation (were seriously alarmed) by the her behavior and have an obligation to SEPARATE and project their reputation. Release such as her are typically and normally accompanied by the FINDINGS (analysis) of the trial investigators, research staff (MD ANDRESON). So to make it appear as though they support her UNFOUNDED case report released as "analysis" of trial results to date analyzed is NOT only Unacceptable it is as Budzar said UNPRECEDENTED.
They will. Assure me they will. This will not be bought for under 3.50, bare minimum, as we speak, later different story.
Clinical analysis of data has NOT been done. CEO release interim data "giving the impression" that the center where the trial is being conducted MD Anderson that it was done. There has been ZERO analysis to date of the data in the June two week ago release. MD Anderson was OUTRAGED, that is all part of the public record now. Outraged and rightfully so. People on this board are accusing the very people who are conducting the trial, MD Anderson of conspiracy, etc. In all honesty that accusation is what an 11 year old would be doing. Despite whatever happens the CEO is highly questionable. She was brought up on charges at ENron, as CFO. I would not invest a single dime here. There is no safety and efficacy data that was expected many months ago as promised. Big red flags all over this.
"Also contrary to Feuerstein’s attack, it is neither unusual nor inappropriate for interim results from unblinded, open label trials to be reported, particularly in the case of a novel technology in a particularly difficult disease setting that is the subject of significant scientific, clinical and public interest. In such cases, both companies and researchers frequently provide interim data and/or case studies."
Yes, dear Linda, ALL TRUE. However, only ONCE that "interim data" has been called for at the appropriate time and subjected to clinical analysis, oversight and review. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED. Now when that does then there is ALWAYS a PR release where the center where the trial is being conducted (if not in house) a joint statement (two) are re;eased. One by the CEO, your highness, and one by in this case MD Anderson. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED. Therefore, you are misleading by your statements, irrespective of any validity or clinical signficane.
"...Finally suppose this company has delayed and missed timelines on trial enrollment as well as announcements of results." Big deal?! She give investors a lollipop to suck in the comfort of their idiocy. It is called, "daily case reports." lol
It is NOT unusual. IN fact it is standard practice for one facility conducting the trial to be in contact with another conducting the same, trial regarding release of clinical vital data. 2) Daily Case reports are not and cannot serve to be presented as "results." Results need to constitute analyzing the complete data set over preset time periods (open label or not). Get it?
First of all lying MORON that wasn't said today that statement was made to Adam at ASCO. Secondly, that is NOT what is in question here. I don't think you get it? In any case the safety and efficacy profile has not been released.
As is SEC investigation for highly unethical release of results that have not yet been made ready yet for release (not because they are good, bad, tooty fruity, etc) because they have not been yet analyzed by Linda herself and herself but by the respectable MD Anderson who is #$%$ conducting the trial. Lol
"ALL empirical research is based on observation. Phase I trials that are not powered for hypothesis testing so all that is typically published are raw observations (safety, dosing schedule), no analysis (of the type you seem to imply) needed."
Really? Really?!! MD Anderson does not seem to think so. LOL What is truly remarkable about your post is that the "safety and efficacy" profile for phase one was NOT released. For Godsake the bare specifics that should have been released many months ago on enrollment specifics were NEVER released.
Do you realize by doing what she did what she did? Do any of you brilliant ones realize? This dim wit self serving narcissistic delusion of grandeur btch in effect became the spokesperson for MD Anderson. One has to speculate if they themselves reported her to the SEC for misleading statement. Again you IDIOTS not anything to do with data good versus not but data not yet ready to be analyzed and overstepping her boundaries which by default constitutes misleading statements. You cannot conclude, or make preliminary conclusions until at LEAST preliminary interim clinical analysis is done. Guess what. It hasn't been. Therefore, the next statement might be either one from the SEC or (I know this might come as quite a shock) but an equally unprecedented move by MD Anderson itself withdrawing from the trial based upon the CEO's attempt to suggest joint consensus on clinical analysis that has not yet been performed. Major violation. ANd rightfully as Budzar said, "Unheard of."
Yep! And amongst the bashers is the host of the trial being conducted MD Anderson! You got to be kidding, Are you serious?