Entertaining thread!colgm: I don't think VRS37 is saying the...

Entertaining thread!
colgm: I don't think VRS37 is saying the company has fabricated data or results. It's inappropriately selecting a comparator result of 8 months and then claiming the device is "clinically proven" to double survival is I believe the gist of the concern. This is straight out of the pharma co sales and marketing playbook, you find the weakest result you can from the literature (in this case the 8 months) and compare with your trial result so you can claim a big apparent advantage. I suppose many on this forum probably wouldn't care less or will find this an abstract concern- or will think what the company is doing is great as long as it creates hype and boosts the share price, but I can tell you oncosil's customer group of oncologists generally won't really like being sold comparisons like this and won't be fooled, and if oncosil pushes this selling message they could look very silly.

But just applying common-sense, anybody who has done any background research on this can see a claim that from a small one-arm trial like this the product has proved doubling survival (or halved risk of death) just doesn't pass the sniff test. If oncosil had gone back further in time, found a paper with a trial result with a 4 month survival, would you honestly believe the oncosil device had quadrupled survival?

Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking that because a company has a regulatory approval it means everything it says about its product is fine and endorsed by the regulator. That's a fallacy.