GrahamB wrote: Oilminerdeluxe wrote: Ok, Graham. I will take the bait. What do you mean when you say the story isn't proven? Do you suggest that the people that are cancer free after 15 months are NOT cancer free at 15 months and beyond? Because, THEY ARE!
Thanks for your thoughts oilminer-appreciate learning more about the molecule and great to hear your enthusiasm.
My basis for saying the story (Ruvidar ) is unproven at this point, comes directly from they companies data.
For the most recent data, that I have seen, correct me if you have more recent data, the Phase II NMIBC Clinical Study, the primary objective is:
“In patients with BCG-Unresponsive CIS, who are ineligible for or decline radical cystectomy, RuvidarTM will result in a durable Complete Response (“CR”) that is greater than 20%”
So far, very encouraging results are reported, but it is only an interim analysis in the study is not completed nor reported fully.
The results are promising, but preliminary, and not proven yet.
This is acknowledged by the company in the investor deck :”The data analysis is only a representation of the data accrued to date and does not intend to represent a tendency or portray any conclusion as to the effectiveness, duration or safety of the investigational treatment. “https://theralase.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Theralase-Corporate-Presentation-05-18-2023.pdf
To your point, there was evidence of CR at Fortnite, and 50 days, however, only 11 Patients were evaluable as the team notes:
“11 Evaluable Patients that achieved CR at each assessment date and thus achieved the primary and secondary objectives of Study II for all patients assessed up to 450 days (11/37 =30%).”https://theralase.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Theralase-Corporate-Presentation-05-18-2023.pdf
So it’s not an opinion, as I understand it, it is because the study has not been completed, so we cannot scientifically conclude that it is proven.
Remember, there is a bias in studies that are small, especially selection bias (and 37 patients is small, even 100 is) and the result may not be replicated. this has been reported extensively where in larger studies, or in clinical practice, the patients may be different .
There’s a good review on this, but essentially the authors state : “The most well-known reasons for small study effects include publication bias, outcome reporting bias and clinical heterogeneity”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7736122/
Finally, once the study is reported it needs to be peer reviewed.
So, I am not saying that it won’t be effective, or there are certain concerns, only that it hasn’t been proven yet. That is something that the company themselves are stating.
Once again, this is my opinion based on my reading, and my review of the scientific literature. People should be thier own do diligence, and don’t make decisions to buy or sell based on what you read on these boards, by anyone, especially me. I haven’t gone on to do more work further on this in stock, because it didn’t pass the initial screen. But it’s on my watchlist, and I will see when the data gets reported.
So I wont be here until there is material data- after we finish this little discussion.