RE:RE:RE:Misdiagnose???Yes Macer!!!! Absolutely correct, when u cut through all the smoke and mirrors scumbags are trying throw at us to negate our results, THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, EFFICACY HAS BEEN IN PHASE 1 ALREADY!!! FUK UR PP, SCUMBAGS, OUR RESULTS ARE AMAZIN ALREADY, BRING PHARMA ON BOARD AND END THIS MOM AND POP MELODRAMA,
Macer wrote: vestor111 wrote: I raised the issue of potential misdiagnosed some time back and not without reasonable cause.
If you reread the Nov 8th release, it appears there is a lack of definitive conclusions on exactly what the patients have because some had "a history" and the others were "at risk". This wording appears far from definitive so it appears there is a degree of subjectivity in the diagnosis. Cost and difficulty issues may prevent this. But this lack of hard science definity lends itself to the possibility of misdiagnosis.
As I have stated, I done blame the company or PMRI - it is the nature of the beast.
But as you point out - ph1 is all about safety and tolerability first and foremost. And so far, TLT is coming up aces.
Hopefully in Ph2, there will be some latitude to address suspected UUTUC patients to help devise a better understanding (this hope I have also posted) and over time perhaps some specific techniques will be devised to insure better treatment.
From the cheap seats - close to the mushroom farm.
Whether the are at risk for or are known as having UUTUC is irrelevant for this phase of study. The exploratory efficiacy means exactly what it implies. They will explore how efficacious the treatment is and try to glean any possible information that will help them with dosing/delivery of lighht etc for subsequent phases.
They have actually demonstrated that even in these UUTUC patients they are able to stop/slow progression of the disease. Something that has never been accomplishe to date, nevermind in this patient demographic. I am more confident than ever about this technology and treatment.
Macer