RE: Further observationswhatever the risks of putting reovirus directly into the bloodstream, to patients with compromised or weak immune systems, dying of cancer, whether they die of a viral infection or cancer is irrelevant - maybe that sounds harsh, but i think its reality. who wouldn't take a chance with pneumonia if the virus could stop and kill their deadly cancer?
the point here is to get on with it and find out some answers, whether they are good or bad.
some have blamed HC & the FDA for their slowness in moving reolysin along - i think onc has their fare share of the blame to accept.
two years and 6 total phase II prostate patients?
can they possibly move any slower and draw smaller conclusions?
what reasons are there to think larger UK & US trials will move faster, especially if we are worried about how terminal patients might react to reolysin?
with dose escalation and the obligatory subsequent monitoring period inherent in such a trial, "official" results from the UK won't be out for at least a year, and if ph I glio in Canada is any indication for predicting, UK results won't be out for two or more years.
recent examples show that the FDA will move quickly with even marginally effective drugs if companies have solid evidence from their trial results to support even minor beneficial effects.
the fact that we are approaching the 2nd anniversary of waiting for FDA approval for commencement of the US glio trials suggests to me that onc shoulders most of the responsibility for the snail's pace of progressing reolysin