I am no expert. But logic dictates that in the trial, they would...

I am no expert. But logic dictates that in the trial, they would keep the Keytruda dosage the same. Otherwise, they might introduce too many variables. By keeping Keytruda dosage the same, then whatever extra efficacy or toxicity could then be put down to Hervaxx. So if there is any added efficacy, then it can only be because of Hervaxx. On the other hand, due to the PH2 data from Hervaxx trial, they would not expect any added toxicity issue.

There is that powerful word, 'eradicate'. Or 'obliterate' or 'significant tumour killing' etc. These powerful words seem to be used by IMU more and more often lately. Could it be they have seen it happening now in human trial for them to be so confident as to bandy them around so nonchalantly? After all, it is an offence to the FDA for any company to over-pump up their drugs capability without real data to back them up