RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Sad newsThat's the point Mr.Snyder and others with short life expectancy won't see any therapeutic effects so to me they are used as samples if they increase their minimum to even 4 or 5 months at least those patients have a chance of some therapeutic effects if and when the drug works. Again I am not an expert but why not design the trial so they can get results and help patients. I do also believe by now absent any toxicity they could be at therapeutic levels so at least patients enrolling now could potentially see some efficacy.
juniper88 wrote: Thera could have specified a 6 month life expectancy instead of 3. Then a person with that life expectancy would more like have gotten a therapeutic dose. However, Mr. Snyder who's life expectancy was probably less than 6 months would never have been on the trial.
I believe right now any new patients would be getting a therapeutic dose.
scarlet1967 wrote: They need to increase the life expectancy as it is now the therapeutic benefits of their drug absent any toxicity could start at forth cycle or later each cycle takes 3 weeks a total of minimum 3 months before any potential efficacy so these patients won't see any benefits due to a narrow window for the drug to work.
In my opinion as per current design few first patients who enrol pretty much are contributing to the trial process but not getting any meaningful benefits and yes we should thank them for their heroic contributions. I am not an expert but this doesn't add up, not ethical at all.