Octo$...I'm not a non-holder and for the umpteenth time- "...

Octo$...I'm not a non-holder and for the umpteenth time- " increase life expectancy, reduces tumour size, increased chance of being operated on" .....everything that could be solely and 100% caused by the better chemo used in the panco study. The literature abdi and others have sourced supports this.
And as for your earlier post that the comparison is fair because they've looked at what's done in Australia- well that argument may have been just about been valid were it not for the fact that of the 50 odd studies in their slide 20 of the AGM presentation, I count at least a quarter of the studies being older than 10 years, and 7 of the studies appear to use something called S1- which a google search shows is only used and approved in Japan (apparently it's toxic to Caucasians). A handful of other studies in the 50 odd on that slide appear to use stuff that is not known to have any effectiveness/application in this cancer based on current guidelines. So it's perfectly legitimate for anybody- holder or non-holder-to ask why the naïve analysis has been done in this way and how and why these particular studies were selected, when very few seem to reflect modern practice.

I've actually nothing against the device per se- perhaps it works perhaps it doesn't- call me an OSL agnostic - but I still think the actual efficacy remains unproven when used in the way studied in panco (though safety agreed looks OK). What I really don't like is the sense of being sold something (i.e. this "naïve" analysis) that looks increasingly misleading, makes little sense and appears to amount to very questionable science masquerading as hard clinical fact. The amount of potential bias in the analysis is a big problem. There are some pretty bold claims being made out of this OSL analysis, as pointed out by another poster, which I simply don't think can be substantiated. At least one oncologist and a statistician I've spoken to about this concurs with my thoughts on this. Mind you if BSI-COC buys all this and grants CE, well then great. Not sure of probability of that- and we still don't know if COC ever provided the promised assessment post the London meeting.