Since my initial post I have been researching, in the last few...

Since my initial post I have been researching, in the last few months, the ramifications of this study. It is now coming to light that patients are now placing law suits against oncologists. Research and studies are now being released that show, in approx 75% of cases, that it is chemo that kills the patient and not the cancer. In these cases it is the ongoing use of chemo in second, third and fourth doses that is causing the problem. There is no disputing the fact that the current attack plan is surgery followed by initial dose of chemo is all ok. Its subsequent doses that are killing patients.

Chewiee posted: “I think when the FDA is faced with mounting evidence that chemo causes the surviving cancer cells to be more resistant to further chemo treatment, it has no choice but to compel the chemo companies and doctors to issue warnings to patients. This will be like the warning signs on the pack of cigarettes. Otherwise, expect a class action against the chemo companies”

It would appear that oncologist are not highlighting the fact that in 75% of cases, the chemo kills you. This is resulting in a ground swell of lawsuits against oncologist and eventually chemo companies.
An oncologist cannot be sued if, after treatment, the cancer kills you. They are now facing litigation if it is proven that it was the chemo that killed the patient.

So, what does all this mean as far as PRR is concerned. Cvac has been proven to be safe (only flu like symptoms). It has yet to be determined what % benefit there is in staying in remission with Cvac. From an oncologist view point, they need an alternative that will not result in a law suit. That is to say, if Cvac only provides 20% chance of staying in remission, then this will be a viable alternative to administering a drug that can kill you. If, in a particular patient, Cvac fails, then the oncologist cannot be sued, as the patient would have died from cancer, and not from the effect of Cvac.

I know this is a heartless way to look at this insidious disease, but when law suits become prevalent, then it will become a fact of life. Given what is now happening, I believe that oncologists will be crying out for Cvac to be approved, even if it has, say, for example, a 20% success rate.
Here’s the scenario: An oncologist/patient discussion: There is Cvac, that will provide a X% chance of staying in remission, or there is chemo, that has a 75% chance of killing you.

It is also a sad fact that huge money is involved in chemo. Given the above scenarios, the chemo companies will not lose out as it is still the preferred first line treatment. Given the above, I still believe that there will be a huge ethical and litigation move to have Cvac fast tracked, to prevent what is starting to happen.
My research covered hundreds of web sites, which are too many to list here. I suggest you DYOR.

Try googling:
Does chemo cause death
Patients sue chemo
Patients law suit chemo
Class action Avastin chemo

My apologies if this is a heartless look at this insidious disease (I have friends who have died from cancer) but I also look at reality, and what is transpiring in the cancer field. It all bodes very well for PRR, which I believe will become the preferred alternative.
I note that a few posters are saying that the PRR SP will not move until further PRR announcements are provided. That’s true, we need more data to be produced. The point I would like to make is that other events (above) may well drive the PRR SP as well.

GLTA