RE:Re-reading news release from November - my thoughtsLike I've said many times, the nr of Nov 8 was a complex, lengthy, jargoned document that should have been released in pm not am, so a more detailed understanding of the nr could have been done and the panic that resulted from the morning release could have been AVOIDED or at least lessened. Interesting that you have had to read that nr many times to get the full impact of it!!! Oilyscumbag had it down in ten minutes!! Read, analyzed paraphrased and written in three or four lengthy paragraphs!!! First sentence of first paragraph, paraphrased, Patient one, CANCER returned: patient two, CANCER returned: Patient three , cancer returned, most people read that and panicked, no time to see the positives, no time to get a good grip on what was actually discussed. We got the message that was supposed to dominate! ALL PATIENTS, CANCER RETURNED, SELL SELL SELL!!! DAMMMMMMN, IF ONLY ROGER HAD RELEASED THAT NR AFTER CLOSE???????
YES WE HAVE ACHIEVED EVERYTHING WE WANTED WITH THOSE RESULTS, THEY WERE GREAT, OUR SCIENCE HAS GREAT PROMISE AND YET 22 PENNIES. THERE IS A DISCONNECT THERE AND IVE BEEN LAYING THE BLAME FOR THAT DISCONNECT AT THE PERSON MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT DISCONNECT! WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF HE HAD PRESENTED YOUR POST AFTER THE NOV 8 NR AS AN EXPLAINATION IN LAYMANS TERMS OF OUR RESULTS???? HE HAS HAD MONTHS TO EXPLAIN, TO SUPPORT THE VALUE OF THOSE RESULTS AND OUR SCIENCE, TO SHOW HIS POSITIVITY TO THE RESULTS, TO CONDEMN THE NAYSAYERS, THE MANIPULATORS!!! SILENCE IS WHAT HE HAS GIVEN US!! HAS THAT SILENCE HELPED THE SHAREHOLDERS AND HIS SCIENCE, OR HAS IT HELPED THE MANIPULATORS? simple question, simple answer: 22 PENNIES!! WHY?????? THE DEAL !!!!!!!
7s5911 wrote:
I went back and read this again (I think I've re-read this more than any other PR)! Remember that 180 days re-evaluation of patients one, two, and three was not a pre-defined outcome measure of the trial. The three did not achieve the exploratory outcome measure at 180 days post treatment. In other words, 180 days re-examination was not a requirement of the trial.
Patients 5-9 will also be tested at 180 days, but unlike the first three, these are part of the trial's reporting measures.
For those new here, or those wondering, here is the exploratory evaluation for the trial:
- Exploratory: Evaluate efficacy. (Measured by Recurrence Free Survival (“RFS”), defined as the interval from Day 0 (Day of PDT treatment) to documented recurrence or death from any cause, whichever occurs first. Recurrence is defined as any new tumour growth (i.e.: any biopsy-confirmed new or recurrent tumour), evaluated at 90 days for the first three patients treated at the MRSD and primarily at 90 days for the last six patients treated at the Therapeutic Dose and secondarily at 180 days post treatment)
As for adverse events (AE), red and inflamed shouldn't worry us too much (unless this leads to an adverse event of grade 4 or 5, which are defined as:
- Grade 4 = Life-threatening or disabling AE
- Grade 5 = Death
The primary outcomes of the trail are safety and tolerability, as measured by patients who experience adverse events (“AEs”) Grade 4 or greater that do not resolve within thirty (30) days.
We have not heard of any AE of Grade 4 or higher for patient four, so as far as I'm concerned, we're already in the clear. That would give us 4 of 4, or 100%. In fact, the subtitle of the original PR from November 8th was "First Four Patients Treated with Company’s Anti-Cancer Treatment Achieve Pre-Defined Primary, Secondary and Exploratory Outcome Measures."
Hopefully, some of the PRs that hopefully release during the SPIE conference will also give us an update on patients 5-9, as well as new data/update on the wellbeing of patient four.
I think we can feel good about where we are.