Share
354 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 51
clock Created with Sketch.
06/01/21
16:23
Share
Originally posted by needle:
↑
Dana Farber choosing Pax for blood cancer in the brain has highly significant implications for the drug. Make no mistake this is a blood cancer (the company, "a little bit" used the word brain cancer)......sure its in the brain, but PCNSL is a blood cancer, no doubt about that. (my research - about 5 hours alone on the type of cancer) Pax for blood cancer in a clinical trial, after some major approved cancer drugs, including PI3k drugs - had previously been tried.I am not suggesting Pax is already a done deal with approved from the FDA - no, but the drug has done enough across a broad range of research, studies and other clinical trials - now/today to be opened up in 15 or 20 FDA clinical trials in PI3 actionable cancers - OUTSIDE of the brain....... (So that in one sentence is again what I think of the worth of the drug. ) Again just rereading my story from earlier today, regarding PTEN and PI3K inhibitors for prostrate cancers - that is a nice story from only yesterday, and explains things well. It might help to explain such a big call just made. It would be nice to get contrarian calls, based on factual logic - but is that possible.... are those drugs in the prostrate story better equipped to do the job than Pax ? (not "calls" for needle to be cautious, thanks)
Expand
Mate, I don't think that from a science point of view you will get a lot of contration views. Currently there only seem to be one half heartedly down ramper around. Guess who...