"It was however necessary to point out that there is no RISK receiving SOC in the absence of an approved product."No
@pfeifer1982, it was
not necessary to point that out. You seem to get it, but then you obviously don't. My point to Sector was in the hypothetical situation where there
is an approved product.You have totally misunderstood my reply to Sector. You have mistakenly inferred that I said that taking placebo is risky. Perhaps this is because you didn't observe a previous exchange between Sector and me in which I asked him if he'd prefer to take the
risk of going in a trial where he could be given placebo as opposed to being prescribed an FDA approved, very efficacious, funded, KOL- recommended agent (the subject of the discussion being Ryoncil for aGvHD). He'd rather risk placebo! A willing guinea pig.
My point to him was that taking a placebo
in that situation is more risk than taking a proven therapy. Go back to my
Post #:65268543 and see where I specified that particular situation. Nobody could mistake that for meaning that I think placebos are risky.
Please spare me your prodigiously lengthy dissertations that don't address what I actually said.
"Of course they will receive placebo PLUS Standard Of Care (SOC)." I agree, but tell that to Sector, who reckons there is no placebo in this trial.
It may well be that at some future time, several years away, there could be a head-to-head comparison between Ryoncil and CYP-001. That won't happen unless CYP clears the hurdle of recruiting for a P2 trial when most if not all relevant clinicians would know that there is an effective product already available. I can tell you that I wouldn't put any patient of mine in that trial. Would you?
(20min delay)