RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:NMIBCBoy , Gasmas, u must have stayed up all night figuring out that piece of made up bs!!! Typical distortion, lies and exaggerations!!! Lets start only with your opening idea. Recurrence is tied to efficacy while progression is used in the context of the cancer advancing to a more lethal form. Here ur telling us that progression of the cancer, in your lying brain, has nothing to do with efficacy???? Bullshittttt on that lie. One more example and thats all the time im going to waste on this piece of shitttt garbage masquerading as discourse!!! Recurrance, root word is to recur , to come back, you try to say the the worst of the worst had no cancer when they started, then, after 90 days it recurred, it came back, meaning it was there before and it came back. But lets assume u are right for a moment, and no cancer existed, if they had no cancer why the fuk were they treated, ufukkinmoron!!!!! This goes right up there with oj could get same results and a jv might not want to spend money on reseach!!! All claims u have made. Yaz give it up u truly are GASMAS YAZUFFFFFIKINMORRON!!!
bionicjoe wrote: We need to be careful using the words progression and recurrence because they have very different meanings. Fuk!!!!!!!! !!! We are already there, we dont have to wait for anything except Roger asking for a sealed bid process!!!!!! Dont believe these manipulating scumbags!!! They want u to believe we need to jump more hoops before we ask pharma on board!!! That is crapola. That is please let us do one more pp so we can rob u of 70% of ur valud!!!, and then in six months, yup lets go for pharma??????? Bullshitttttt on that!!!! Do u want to keep ur full value? Do u want to give away60-80% of our company for a temporary fix? Do you want to reward the manipulators? To avoid that, seek a jv, to welcome those negatives seek a pp. Pharma knows who we r. They know we made the people they gave up on, cancer free for over 90 days with one treatment, they know we stopped the progression of cancer for over 180 days, they know we saved our patients bladders for over 180 days, they fukkin know our treatment can be used in a variety of cancer treatments! They are praying Roger plays by the rules and continues to jump through the hoops. They are praying he doesnt realize the unique position he is in. They are praying he doesnt announce z closed bid jv seeking process!!!!!!!! Why are they so against a closed bid process??? You are the ceo of Merck, what do you do if Roger asks for bids????? Ok, u have one bid, what do u bid, 20 million, 100 million, or do u want to be sure u get it, 10 billion. And then u find out a conglomerate of tier two pharmas have pooled their resources and have bid 20 billion!!!! Dammmmn it could be glorious!!!! But why try that, huh, Roger, A PP WILL DO ABOUT THE SAME. WHY WILL ROGER NOT SEEK TO KNOW WHAT WE COULD GET?????? TRY IT, YOU MIGHT GET HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, PROBABLY BILLIONS! Longholder99 wrote: we are becoming an issue for Merck. Soon enough, and for sure once we get to Ph2. It's going to be 'fish or cut bait' for big Pharma where Theralase is concerned.
Recurrence is tied to efficacy while progression is used in the context of the cancer advancing to a more lethal form. If you recall their job in unscientific terms is to destroy microscopic cancer cells to prevent them from growing back into visible tumors. Somewhere between 90 and 180 days the potential treatment failed to do that in all 3 of the first batch of patients. They all experienced visible tumors again when the patients were put through the 180 day cystoscopy procedure and that's what the market has keyed on. It's fairly simple when you break it down. Three patients were followed for a short 6 months. They entered the trial clean of visible tumors, they exited the trial 6 months later with visible tumors having grown back. I'm assuming the clinical trial team examined the patients to make sure there were no visible tumors before they were administered the TLD-1433 dose to prevent contamination of the results? Will the therapeutic dose result in a different outcome? We likely won't know until RW comes back from his Dubai trip but let there be no doubt that a great deal is riding on the 4th patient having a different outcome than the first 3. As for stopping the progression of the cancer to a more deadly form I would caution investors to not rely too heavily on progression to save the day if recurrence is announced in the 4th patient. For one thing, the data is extremely preliminary to draw any firm conclusions from a 6 month window. There is also the sticking point that at 6 months tumors started growing again in the first 3 patients and if left untreated they may very likely progress. Maybe the TLT treatment can with further testing be shown capable of temporarily halting the progression to a more serious form of cancer in some patients but will it work in all patients and what do you do about the fact that these tumors still keep growing back potentially ready to turn into the more nasty variety. Do you keep dosing patients until it becomes ineffectual to them like BCG and what then? But we are getting ahead of ourselves. This trial is not about stopping progression and it's many nuances. It's cut and dry for the market. There can be no recurrence in the 4th patient. Period, end of story, don't even think about it. 3) 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)