Continue to fail to understand my posts and basic science. Continue to fail to understand that I'm hoping for rindo approval but know irrelevant science when I see it.
You're so obvious.
You've already attracted the wrath of some of the many posters here who will be angry at you for not posting "CLDX $100 after asco presentation guaranteed!!!!" or some such thing.
If past history is any guide, it will drop after ASCO. But maybe this year will finally be the year that that doesn't happen!
1) The identification of one mechanism does not prove that it is the only operative mechanism, or even the primary operative mechanism. 15% long-term survival is obviously better than that seen with standard therapy, but clearly EGFRvIII inhibition alone (and by extension, whatever PEDF suppression is occasioned by that inhibition) is not sufficient to generate a durable response in the majority of patients. There are various ways in which GBM can develop resistance to EGFRvIII blockade, including PEDF expression by other pathways.
2) There may be no record of GBM patients living longer than 5 years in rindo trials (unless they've received rindo), but there are published reports of GBM patients living longer than 5 years well before rindo arrived on the scene.
Confining the discussion to rindo trials, however, the 15% is a promising signal, and with any luck it'll be SS in phase 3. But whether this is due to suppression of PEDF is a matter of curiosity. At this point, there's no evidence that high (or any) PEDF expression (and inhibition of that expression by rindo) is related to the outcomes seen. I'll be interested to see that data if any is ever generated.
3) Rindo may well be approved (and I'll be happy if it is). But this paper will be a non-factor in that approval.
As the abstract states, the "key regulator" of GSC is actually PEDF. The optimistic scenario you've developed about rindo assumes that EGFRvIII is primarily responsible for PEDF expression/secretion. Other studies (not necessarily in GBM) have suggested that PEDF expression is affected by factors other than EGFRvIII, and that in some cases it can actually be pro-apoptotic.
So the benefit of rindo in this particular situation is actually unknown, and this paper will likely have no impact on the FDA's decision about any approval.
I like how you think. I picked the winning numbers for the May 9th lottery draw, but bought my ticket on May 10th. I called it--my timing was just off by like 24 hours.
You're a complete doofus.
I don't remember, but that's very likely. And nothing much happened then either.
CLDX will take off when there's an FDA approval or when pre-approval data are so mindblowing that approval is inevitable (look at ibrutinib for a paradigm). Not seeing that yet with anything CLDX has in its pipeline.
Ah, the rallying cry of the ignorant. When they have no answers, they resort to insults: "Shorty!" "Moron!" they yell.
Well, you're a moron just like me, then. Did you answer the question about the 10-year+ trial, by the way? No, because you're a moron who has no answers.
If there was any strong belief that something astonishing is going to happen in two weeks, CLDX should be making more significant gains. How much more will the survival stats improve over the November results in the space of 6 months? Also, when did CLDX last gain $5-6 in a single day?
You're a mental deficient who deserves to be on ignore. If you can't answer a question, go back to drinking bee and eating cheese puffs.
You did say the shorts would be back in force today, right? Did you want to choose another day? They might be covering in force today--maybe that's what you meant.