RE:RE:Part of the problem - diagnosis?All excellent concerns and if you expect answers , get in line!! Roger ain't talking, the choir only cheerlead, so you will be called a whinner! Don't worry, be happy. Deal of all deals will be released ????? Another question left unanswered!
quote=2b7f6fab]Vestor good post. I've been hesitant to post some of my thoughts the past few months since there are so many whiners and complainers on this board already and let's face it after 4 years of holding the stock to be down 25% with all the interesting results that have come out almost makes me think there is going on. Also I'm not in the medical/health field so much of this is new to me. I guess my main complaint is why did we go into NMIBC in the first place considering your concerns below when now it's come out that the drug can be x-ray activated? I mean it will take $10+ million to run a Ph2 which we don't have and so far no one has stepped up to the plate to sponsor us. (why don't we have govt grants coming in already?). Seems to me that brain cancer or even breast cancer with point source would have given more definitive results in a Ph1.
vestor111 wrote: We all know we are in an NMIBC trial but how did that evolve to be a UUTUC trial or even a Kidney trial if the kidney is the actual point source for the cancer outbreak?
It would seem if the diagnosis was more specific, then the treatment could be more specific.
Treating NMIBC in the bladder when the point source is upstream seems a bit absurd.
With ureterscopes available (for both treatment and diagnosis) and inflatable catheters to allow time for compound uptake and subsequent laser activation, if UUTUC properly was diagnosed in the first place, this wouldn't be this hit or miss guessing game.
(tdon - good posts but one point - the ureter has a persistalsis function - probably to insure b that the kidney drain into the bladder regardless of the body's position. It would seem an inflatable catheter could be used to help tthe infusion process - or some sort of sedative to shut down the paristalsis. But this is besides the point...the diagnosis appears too broad to treat effectively.)
If the kidneys were the ultimate source, there too a separate procedure could be developed.
Sloppy science??? Or the cost of proper diagnosis??? Hmmm.
I also question the data we heard of only 3 to 5% of NMIBC originates in the Ureter as was presented in the urologist's video on the topic of NMIBC. It appears we have seen too many cases of UUTUC to fit the stats.
[/quote]