Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : biotech binary events -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nigel bates who wrote (40)	6/3/2003 3:24:01 PM
From: Biomaven	Respond to of 295

Well certainly one possible explanation for fewer deaths in the trial overall is that the shark goop is working. But my instinct with historical death rate comparison is that they often prove too high compared with those you actually see in practice in a trial - whether it's better care (if only because the patients are in a trial) or because people are generally diagnosed more quickly than they used to be or something else I don't know. So bottom line is I personally wouldn't read to much into it. Peter

To: nigel bates who wrote (40)	6/4/2003 1:13:10 AM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 295

Trial by itself is strange. Mono-therapy, randomized (1:1) double-blind placebo-controlled for metastatic progressive RCC? Are all this patients following protocol? Or did they followed protocol? What chance do you have with this type of cancer on placebo? If all survival are on Neovastat and none on placebo, than 18 months after last pts enrolled we still do not have median survival time. This will be much better than 16 months in PI/II. To achieve this type of the results majority of subject should be in remission, or long term non-progressed stable disease. Can placebo do this for 40-50 subjects out of 150? Miracle? Very interesting!!!