LaserStock29 wrote: Eoganacht wrote: So thadeush - you think Dr. Kulkarni and/or Dr. Kassouf were bribed by "big pharma" to sabotage the treatment of the critically ill cancer patients in their care. And then the ever-obliging Theralase covered for them by publicly stating that the problem was not with those running the trial but with the clinical protocol that was submitted to them by the company. I guess big pharma also bribed Theralase to sabotage their own trial.
thadeush wrote: I know they're probably monitoring the testing meticulously and I hate to bring this up, but the conspiracy part of my personality thinks that the success of TLT's Phase 2 might bring quite a bit of pain to the stock price of other treatments. Is it possible that any of the doctors doing the test could have been 'incentivised' by some large pharma groups to alter the doses and throw off the results? I doubt they'd be able to get away with altering the likely much more closely watched second treatment, but things are pretty ruthless when this kind of money is involved. I only bring it up because the results seem like such an anamoly.
Consider all the dosimitry work done by Dr.Lilge et al... eliminating meticiously one objection at a time... the ability to measure light.. incidence and refractory.... 'bouncing off the luminal layer' automatically calculated by a computer... Monte Carlo then the upgraded Full Monte. etc
Then consider 2016 AGM 9:40
2016 Agm Then consider 2016 AGM mark
2016 AGM Dosimitry Avoiding Overtreatment and Undertreatment 13:47 Im sure science is difficult and once you get to actually do things in life... sure a curveball here or there can happen.. But im sorry... There was 1 month between patients one and two (March 3 and April 7) for which we were told via NR.
Are we to believe that Dr.Lilge wasn't emailed, cc'd or forwarded the dosimitry......
"Hi Dr.Lilge, here is the data from the first patient, can you check and confirm that the dose is accurate to the projected modelling of patients bladder by the computer system.. is this patients bladder sufficiently 'treated' and not over/under treated.
This inter-phase 1 review was done and we experienced a 6 month delay between patients while we 'Optimized' the treatment further..... so why wasn't that same consideration done for Phase 2? Again considering so much time was between patients. It's not like we rattled off 10 in a week and could say whoops...... look at that... no time to make an adjustment.
Man oh man........ I try to be as rational about these things..... and not conspiracy oriented..... but I dont like the incomplete report we were given..
Lets put it this way just read what was the Late 80's and Early 90's on Photofrin.. the numbers around this..
1993 Trial Photofrin Japan 2004 Quebec Review of PDC PDT Then consider Dr.Wilson
Photodynamic Therapy Review 2011 In my mind it's not possible to have results like this worse than photofrin...... it seems fishy as fuc*