Yes, well, not manipulated - either poor scientific rigor (did...

Yes, well, not manipulated - either poor scientific rigor (did not conduct the research) or lack of reporting (the data was not supportive of CF33, so it was left out). The reason is because of who the first and last author are (two of the most important people in any paper published):



I challenge you to find another paper investigating preclinical compounds produced by the City of Hope that tested IV and IT in an inferior murine model and didn't follow it up in the most important human-related model. It's either poor scientific rigor or lack of reporting.

Presumably all of the authors would have had to know about, and agree to this. All 16 of them. Most of them oncologists, surgeons and researchers from the City of Hope.

Authors have different roles to play in research. The first author does majority of the work, and the last author oversees the research. The rest play an important role that is specific to their field that supplements the direction of the study. If you think that things like this don't happen in research when companies have a vested interest in the outcomes, take a look at Coca-Cola.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5962884/

For example, the paper that I published had 10 different authors - and I just realised that I have 4 other papers that have cited my work (well done me!). I did almost all the work and wrote the entire paper, Ryu Takechi (probably the smartest man I have ever met in my life) assisted deeply with study design and writing structure, and John Mamo oversaw the overall strategy. The others played more of a consultancy role in dietary intake, interpreting dietary records, statistical analyses, bayesian statistics, laboratory protocols, and others. None of the other authors influenced the writing of the paper, nor were they involved in the review process - that was managed by John and Ryu.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32990613/

If you had a science background, you would know this.

And for what purpose? To force it into a Phase 1 that would inevitably fail?

Same thing happened with HER-Vaxx. HER-Vaxx failed. They do it because people like you and others here (even people who remove their posts when they are wrong) don't have good scientific rigor, listen to everything they are told like good little sharholders, then mindlessly boast about it without investigating.

Comment isn't absurd nor offensive - show me the data. I would have a very different approach to this drug combination if there was a single shred of research that showcased that IV CF33/PDL1 significantly improved survival compared to CF33 and PDL1 as single agents (the fact that there are no single agent controls is another major issue of this preclinical trial). That would mean that blood vessel transport of either IV or IT administration could influence metastatic cancers, and be a viable option for a or many cancer types.

Maybe you can email Shyambabu and ask them if they tested it and what the results were? Here is their email: [email protected]