But you were suggesting that we cannot look at the efficacy of...

First 4707 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
dachopper

4,203 Posts.

5498

15/09/22

12:55

Post #: 63716156
Share

Originally posted by JB1975: ↑

You wrote:

All you seem to be trying to do, is discredit the efficacy that has been shown, by trying to go down rabit holes such as what if this doesn't happen in the future.... and:

Ok - so it does appear the treatments have improved mortality - how do you know that it wasn't becasue of 1 donor.... well because we have a load of children that we have demonstrated unmixed efficacy, along with almost 300 in total that have had mixed and unmixed donors that have also demonstrated efficacy....... So so far the evidence is not supportive that 1 donor is responsivble for the mortality reduction. No evidence - if you have that please share it with everyone. If you don't have it you are speculating without evidence.I never said 1 donor. You and anybody can see that by checking.

3 donors were used to produce the 3 donor cell banks that were in turn used to produce product lots that went into the patients in the 54 patient GVHD001 trial. And so the same 3 donors cells were in the 25 (from the 54) that were compared with the 27.

3 isn't 1. (There can still be variability in 3 - 3 better supports the case you and MSB want to make better than 1). If I was trying to discredit rather than fairly evaluate the evidence I might have said 1 donor when 3 were used which is what you are characterising me as saying - but I wasn't and I didn't. Because I'm looking at the offered publicly available evidence as it is not begging the questions (by presuming things are fact that haven't been established as fact) or misrepresenting those who offer a different view to straw man them.

There is merit in your post and integrity in much of what you write in my opinion I tend to think you aren't intentionally misrepresenting what I've said so much as you really aren't even aware that you are doing so.

I didn't say 1 donor (there were 3 donors - that is a fact) but you are characterising me as having done so. And again inviting me to move away from looking directly at the relevant evidence. And you are getting ticked and great analysis ticked for doing so. Why? Bias is why, in my opinion.

Expand

But you were suggesting that we cannot look at the efficacy of mixed doses, being compelling...... why not.
The answer is in case 1 donor, or 2 donors' cells do not work, and only 1 or 2 of the 3 donors have cells that actually works.

Look at the evidence from the single donor, the mixed donors.... is there a different result?
Did Bour an Klinker get different results from their 6 lines of lab testing?
Is the company saying.... only cells from this 1 person, 2 or 3 people actually work?

You are suggesting it's a posibility.... one so great it's worth non approval?

MSB Price at posting: 93.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
6 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

TLG

Talga Group wins key permit for flagship graphite mine in Sweden

SWP

Swoop lobs $18M offer at microcap telecom Vonex – in which it holds 19.9%

What's causing the cost-of-living crisis, and how to navigate it

SNX

Sierra Nevada raises $2M for silver exploration at Blackhawk

NVU

Nanoveu surges 10% after benchmark testing for new AI chip begins

Week 42 Wrap: HotCopper's top picks; new ASX 200 record; world yawns at war

MTH

Mithril's drilling in Mexico picks up silver at 997g/t, gold at 28g/t

MKT

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

M4M

Macro, Norden set up transport solutions initiative for West Pilbara

IRX

InhaleRX snags $38.5M in funding from VC biotech funder Clendon