RE:Misdiagnose???And the minimizing of our results continues from Wildturd!!
No efficacy yet!!! He says, maybe later!!!
What the fuk!! Then please explain where Roger is wrong, and how our early results ahave not achieved efficacy, already!!!!! THey have, already!! Read Rogers own words!!!
Get a load of this quote from Roger and see if it applies to us???? Note that this is a trial about safety. We do not need to show any efficacy to move on to a phase 2. We only need to show safety. Even when we get to phase 2 we only need to show a response in 3 out of 10 patients for approval - not a complete response - just a response. Read more at https://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard?symbol=v.tlt&postid=27526396#5p8libGzqgPF5eBM.99 WILDTURD, see that part that is underlined, phase two requires only for us to show a response in 3 of 10 patients, NOT A COMPLETE RESPONSE- JUST A RESPONSE!!! Read that again people, J U S T A. R E S P O N S E .. HELLO WILDTURD, HAVENT WE ALREADY DONE THAT IN PHASE ONE??? HMMMM, I wonder if making the worst, the worst of the worst, cancer free for over 90 days, something that no other pharma was able to achieve, WILDTURD, could that be considered, A POSITIVE RESPONSE??????? And WILDTURD, also in phase one we made the worst of the worst, patients pharma had given up on, we stopped the progression of cancer for over 180 days, something no other pharma had done with these patients!!! Now WILDTURD, could that be considered a positive response, seems like we obviously have two positive responses with all, 100% , NOT 30% OF OUR PATIENTS,. DAMMMMMMMN, WILDTURDM WE HAVE ALREADY ACHIEVED PHASE TWO EFFICACY RESULTS WITH A LOWERE DOSE!!!! IN PHASE 1!!!!!! So with those AMAZING results, HAVING ACIEVED PHASE 2 EFFICACY IN PHASE 1, why are we giving any part of our company away for peanuts, WHICH IS WHAT A PP DOES???? WHY, WITH THESE RESULTS ARE WE NOT SEEKING A BIDDING WAR FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS??? WHY WOULD WE WANT TO REWARD THE MANIPULATORS, AND IGNORE OUR AMAZING RESULTS??? ROGER, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT OUR RESULTS SO FAR MEAN AND HOW THEY ARE IMPACTING THE SEARCH FOR FINANCING???? Read more at https://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/v.tlt/theralase-technologies-inc?postid=27533405#60zSi8jT7uWIEsPW.99 wildbird1 wrote:
Safety & tolerability (first 4 patients).
If you take the time to read the TLD 1433 Clinicaltrial. gov site.
Inclusion, exclusion criteria for the Phase1 trial...
No 8, criteria (QUOTE) Have no evidence of Upper Urothelial Carcinomas (involving the Upper Urinary or the Urethra) (END OF QUOTE).
Meaning...In the phase1 trial TLT and UHN were permitted to screen out UUTUC patients (patients that have cancer cells outside the treated area).
The big question is???
If UHN was permitted to screen out UUTUC patients, how did we end up with the first 3(4) patients having recurrence ...possibly caused by UUTUC patients.
Were these 3(4) patients misdiagnose???
Very unlikely for a team of highly qualified PHD scientists from UHN to misdiagnose 3(4) UUTUC patients in a row.
The answer ''could'' be...
1- No..they were not misdiagnose.
2- At this stage in the phase1 trial, screening out the UUTUC patients was not the priority, the priority was on proving '' Safety & Tolerability '' on the low dose patients (1,2,3 ) and the high dose patient (4).
3- You always try to test '' Safety & Tolerability '' on the worst of the worst patients (UUTUC).
UHN used these 3(4) patients to find out about '' Safety & Tolerability '', in addition UHN might have used these 3(4) patients to find extra data on UUTUC extravesical recurrence. (like finding two answers with one action).
These data will be priceless for the Set Up of the phase2 trial.
'' Endpoint of Efficacy '' (last 5 patients).
There is a possibility that the last 5 patients might be used to find out about '' The Efficacy Endpoint ''.
If that is the case with all the informations gained on the first 4 patients, rest assured that TLT & UHN will be very meticulous in screening out patients that have extravesical disease..(UUTUC patientss).
PS: Assuming that patient no4 was used to find out about ''Safety & Tolerability'' on the high dose patients, whether or not patient no4 has recurrence is '' Irrelevant '', the focus is exclusively on the last 5 patients.
If the screening process is done proprely, will be interesting to see how long the last 5 patients will stay recurrence free (the mice that didn't have cancer cells outside the treated area, were 100% recurrence free.