RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The More I Search, the More Mind-Boggling the Adcom's Decis damn, you are correct rg did a complete misread..was his misread intentional or not, who cares not me...but i will provide some folks a "rabbit hole" story....so AdCom, which IMO is supposed to be a high-end, data driven science party, seems to state very strongly that MCNA was safer than BCG (a very positive statement and i could see a non-negative endorsement (like it seems comparable or as good as BCG) but it was "safer than BCG") now i don't believe any data (back to this science thingy) that supported that very strong stated in the kumbyya moment to support that statement..i really really like the statement, but i don't remember any BCG in use as a 2nd line treatment safety data presented. (which is the comparable safety marker)..that is "rabbit hole" territory to me...and PS this was a bigger rabbit hole that seemed to be discussing MCNA in terms of a front line as off label..so "rabbit hole" is just a comment that AdCom lost its way got confused and ended up in an odd place..maybe the meeting was too long