You also fail to mention the primary objective of the trial was...

You also fail to mention the primary objective of the trial was to asses SAFTY of the device and the FEASIBILITY of the administration and not Overall Survival rates. That assessment will require a much larger trial. Yes they do reference OS a lot and push that point and while very early indicators are the treatment does provide benefits a lot more data is required. Improving 5 year survival rate from 5% to 20% on this limited trial is encouraging. Unfortunately l have know a few people to die of cancer and everyone of them would have payed anything to get a few extra days if not months with their loved ones.

The trial does indicate reduction in tumor size as well, therefore allowing surgical resection of the tumor. But as the AGM presentation states three of the patients that had a reduction in tumor size could not proceed with surgery due to advanced age etc. I would agree this is a little vague. The trial only include 10 participants. We don’t know there age, we don’t know how far a long they were. Based on my knowledge of ‘drug’ not ‘device’ trials, most people that participate in a trial are looking down the barrel of a negative outcome100% and are willing to try anything. So, guess what? A much board trial taking participants at various stages is needed before anyone can definitively say how well this device works.

in my opinion very early results are encouraging DYOR