RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:I was invested here until I took an arrow to the knee...Alot if not all safety can be determined by the initial 7 to 14 day checks.. the 1 month xray can do imaging.. of course the 3 month u get to see redness etc. All u want to hear is that the side effects of 2nd treatment were at grade 1 or 2. Nothing serious....... It's kind of difficult to injure the muscle layer of the bladder wall when your using green light which doesn't penetrate that deep and have full controls on refracted light w a diameter....... But let's all act like the markets dont know that. Cant say the risk is any better that one in a million shot ... it's all up in the air....... Gimme a break if the first 2 are safe again we should gap up to .60 and start running erasing the agm crash of 2019
skier59 wrote: That's your opinion gojo, so unless you have been told it specifically, let's wait and see what the second quarterly report tells us when it gets released probably next week. I'm thinking we will get atleast some clues, if not facts, as to what is going on with the study.
gojotv! wrote: As I've said before, don't expect 3 and 6 month data in this phase of testing as we had with Phase 1. Phase one was about measuring toxicity, so results could be shared early, but in this phase efficacy is the investigative goal... and the treatment modality is to give each patient two treatments six months apart. I got this from Dr. Sherri MacFarland herself. So it's estrememly doubtful that results will be shared before patients are in the 9months-to-1year post treatment phase.
Please stop making me repeat this by posting false speculation - you're making me sound like a basher.
GLTA longs! enriquesuave wrote: 10 patients treated us awesome as 3 and 6 months data can and may be presented in mid- May at the AUA meeting 3 months from now. Don't know what the plan is but if data is there, we will be on a one way track up from there. IMO