Hi Prof, Yes, I've already read some of the results and also...

Hi Prof,

Yes, I've already read some of the results and also descriptions and interpretations of the outcome, and that was what prompted me to ask you the basis for your interpretation, not a copy of what you were interpreting, for me to analyse.

I am curious about the basis for your assertion that the early Provenge results were "impressive" when your description in an earlier post of the early results for CVAC is that “the data from the PRR IIa trial was rubbish/marginal at best”.

There was a poster who earlier “professed” that anything <0.05 was junk, but I notice that The study said Dendreon “achieved a p-value of 0.032, successfully exceeding the pre-specified level of statistical significance defined by the study's design (p-value less than 0.043)” Also that “PROVENGE extended median survival by 4.1 months"

So, I was curious to learn why you considered one data set, (for Provenge) was "impressive" but the other for CVAC, was "rubbish", when:
Provenge: Phase II = 19% decrease in disease markers
versus
CVacTM Phase IIa results – 19% of patients responded to therapy.

Care to respond to the original question?