eerily comfortable....., page-22

The science and technology for clinical data analysis is well developed and that applies to the trials in last at least 2 decades.

When I said the science is more precise with immunotherapy, I had in mind what they have as a drug/component and what they are targeting at cell expression level. That HOPEFULLY translates to better success rate (compared to current/conventional treatments, chemo in particular) once there is an indication it is doing what it is intended for, AKA, phase II (of course as well as safety).

To explain with an example, take Carcinoma of Unknown Primary (CUP), which usually leads to the patient being prescribed a cocktail of chemo drugs, hoping one will hit the unknown primary/cause. This means the rest of the drugs in the cocktail were perhaps not needed, but not knowing which ones, you just throw all at the disease. This lack of precision inevitably results in lower success rate.

Hopefully immunotherapy will be less prone to this, and hence a success in phase II will be even more of adecisive point.

On that note, that also tells us an unfortunate fact about different forms of cancer; they don't all do the same thing as depending on the primary (e.g. site; breast, liver, etc) at least the growth & spread (if metastatic) may be different from one to the other, but at cell level, the defense mechanism may be common, hence perhaps the advantage in immunotherapy.