Member Info for 13thmonkey

I lost 50% in lloyds where there was practically zero upside (It was my early days I liked the divi idea), it's not a small company thing, it's a risk management thing. I went too far in on this, but I coupled that with ignoring the warning signs. The penultimate presentation (I think) he looked so f*cked, I actually thought about selling, but most of the damage had been done, my thought process was 'what's the point, I'd may as well leave it' 3-4 days later it was gone. The financial deals could I have forseen the damage they would cause, probably not.

I could run a sweepstake every day on when complaints of abuse happen.

They do fund him too.. Probably pay for the privilege and don't realise that's not how jobs work.

A level that provides a therapeutic benefit, you know like a medicine does, I would argue for it to be stated like that it should be at least as much as std dox, which with much reduced side effects and no cardiotoxicity is better than std dox.
As to the number, a ratio between blood and tumour i can see how it can be very high, but it's the effect of a level that's useful for treatment with low side effects that's actually important. What I think the number should be is irrelevant.

Neither of which would have therapeutically useful levels of dox. Both at the same time is the key.
So what's your point? I assume you can cope with managing 2 or more pieces of information at the same time.

I guess it's waaaahhh they are lying first then. Next well be, not as good as my imaginary experience said it would be.

No cardio toxicity is out performing dox, lower effects is out performing dox, whilst maintaining a therapeutically useful amount of dox where it's needed.
There are many aspects to performance all of which we have been told are at, or exceeded dox. Ie it's able to apply enough dox, with lower side effects.

Waaahhh, but what if they are lying. Like they've a track record of pushing product that didn't... oh wait no they pulled that of their own accord when the virus mutated.
OK, waaahhhh, what if it's not as good as I've decided, with my lack of medical and oncological experience, it should be. All based on no knowledge, just a thought that 15x should be not as good as 20x, but with no real idea that 10x might be perfectly sufficient to blast away the stroma and allow the dox to hit the tumour and the immune system to do it's job now it's exposed. And then you do it again as that layer regrows.
That's what we'll hear next week, 'I thought it would be..', 'they said previously it was better than this... ' (no they probably didn't' )

It'll be like the sewage filled waters of any modern river with a UK water company.

Touk, are you sure you're looking at the right avacta?

It's been said, I have no proof, that the half life of dox is about 5mins, it's rapidly absorbed or processed, for Ava it's meant to be 4.5 hours, so it's stable, it isn't absorbed except where it is cleaved. This is a good thing, it goes round and round in the bloodstream through kidneys and the liver and back out again, and every time it passes through the tumour some of it cleaves. Constantly hitting it over a sustained period. This is no bad thing.

Touk, thanks for proving my point, without context the number of times more is irrelevant, and for the lower level data more so. That context is not ready yet, but it has been indicated that we are going in the right direction. In mice there would have been cleaving with free FAPa, less so in humans as we have less of it. So I guess you are saying you want to wait for the data?

Glad something is going towards prostate cancer

Tell me Joe, how much better, in terms of treatment is 20v the dox to blood ratio than 5x the dox to blood ratio. We know that did has a short half life, apparently c 5min, we know that Ava has a half life that's a lot longer c 4.5hrs apparently. So given some concept of saturation of the tme, half life, and increased dosage, how much better is 20x than 5x , without understanding the maths, but I do understand some of variables, it could be twice as good, could be four times as good, could be ten times as good.
That's the challenge behind the X times as much, what does it actually mean? The answer is nothing, it means nothing without the context, in fact it means less than nothing because the wrong conclusions can be drawn.
That help you understand the problem with bull **** constant whining for data that doesn't actually tell you what you think it tells you.

Sell then, then you won't be concerned.

It's more difficult than you believe, at what point is it too much and offers no benefit.

Sorry replies crossed, I'm sure they'll tell us that, or how much better it is which is actually the more important result, just increasing dox by a factor 20 may mean it's 20x better or 5x better we don't know that interaction, they will probably tell us but it's not actually useful to know, but they'll release that when they are ready.

What does a change of 10% with a p value of 0.03 mean, with a sample size of 6 and confidence intervals from 8 to 15. What do the 6 data points underlying that mean if you don't have the context, b which you won't.
What you need is the interpretation of that, which might be that it's 50% better than std dox, with a statistically significant result with lower levels of side effects.
That's not data, that's information, that's what's price sensitive, that's what it's useful to tell PIs, the level above fund managers with specialist staff would find useful, the medical specialists/FDA would get to see the individual results.

The implications of that data are price sensitive, the data itself I'd say isn't.

[but I want to see the data, even though it's not my field and I won't really understand it.]

The fund managers will/should have access to people who are truly scientifically literate in their funds fields, so sharing it with them makes sense, sharing it with PIs openly, not so much.

1M trend, up
3M trend, up
6M trend, up

The only one that's not up is the last few days.