Member Info for Grace83

Just been reflecting on all the positives building up here. I’d no idea who Adam Hargreaves was until yesterday, but pretty hopeful that it’s a great development for us here to have someone with his knowledge and experience Coming in at this stage. Borgie, I’ve been wondering too about goldensnot and his timing in turning up...Valju, do you happen to know anything, from your one of your cryptic posts about all things golden yesterday, or am I barking up the wrong tree...?

Sharegnomie, look at Jenny’s thread.

Just wanted you to know you’ve been in my thoughts today Jenny. Lots gone on here in the past couple of days, so I’m sure you’ll enjoy catching up when you’re ready :)

Sharegnomie, glad we are on the same page. I was gently advising caution at This moment In time there ;)

Hope you and everyone is ok Jenny. Take care x

I completely agree with your points and believe wholeheartedly that people should do their own research. Apologies if anyone thinks that I have been trying to influence them in any way with my opinions. That’s not been the intention at all. I do feel the need to defend myself when people accuse me of making things up and I have been trying to research and find information out and discuss. I appreciate that it’s difficult to do that without inserting one’s own opinion, even if that’s not the intention. Think I’ve had enough of BB’s for a while now anyway.
GLA

Sharegnomie and luckybob hahahahaha!

Yes of course. I thought you were going to ask me to calm down then ha!

Umm...yes?!

No, don’t use me as a reason! I’m just trying to point everything out, so that people have all the information to hand to make their own decisions from. Its up to people to make their own decisions from there lol. I’m already in an argument in another thread, don’t drag me into this one too...hahaha!

Gmcc, I’m sure you sent a link through to the earlier and later trial comparisons the other day? When i followed this link, which I cannot find at the moment, as I’m in work, it stated that they would be using the RECIST 1.1 criteria to measure efficacy, which is what I had already assumed that they were following, considering their use of language in the table presented in the 2017 data

Oh and no, you wouldn’t expect an email from the FDA, as this is common to look at early disease progression as a measure of efficacy. In fact, it is our main measure of efficacy here, as we only use psa levels to help determine if in fact the cancer is progressing or not. Look at the dddd results. The measure of efficacy was disease progression, but this is only at an early stage. Do you think they received a nice email from the FDA?
Oh and Teamhanz, I have no warrants, just curiosity and some kind of strange urge to discuss the factors in front me me in a sensible manner :)

gmcc and others are clearly familiar with the results and to me, there’s no point in me even being here if I wasn’t here for the science, as I’m certainly not a trader. That’s why I try to make myself intimately familiar with the science From all of the information available.

I’m not sure if the last two negative people just haven’t grasped what I’m trying to do here, or just don’t understand the results and what they mean. I’m trying to find this out for my own investment purposes, as I think it’s significant. Oh and I spoke about the disease progression as my main point in my very first post Teamhanz, so it’s not exactly new information and was a big reason as to why I invested here.
Now let me state again, just like I did earlier, that stable disease does not equate to prolonged life. It’s something to progress to further investigation from. Refer to the dddd results for this point.As nomlungu decided to repeat what I had already stated, which he clearly forgot I had already mentioned.
Rant over

I think you need to read this entire thread, because that is exactly my point! That’s why I’m trying to make sense of this by asking politely, people that were here when these results were released, as to what what mentioned about this. In terms of imaging, etc. Please don’t just assume that I’m ramping, because I’ve stated multiple times before that I’m not going anywhere until at least after the 201 results, whatever their outcome. So nothing that I say in the meantime will ultimately change the results in any way. I’m literally trying to make sense of what we have and that involves the data, alongside what has happened alongside it in the past.
And you really need to go and look up the RECIST criteria for tumours I suggest everyone spends five minutes to google it), as that’s what they’re using here, which is why I’m confused. In PUBLISHED data, recist is used to measure all aspects of tumour progression, using various techniques. They have explained the results in the table, using record criteria, so in that case, then yes....I think you will find that it is in fact the same as saying that the disease didn’t progress!!! SD stands for stable disease using that criteria and if you are using it in your published data then you need to stick to that criteria. The reason I questioned its validity is because apparently this data hadn’t been published, so I’m trying to prove as to how exactly they have come to this conclusion.

http://www.valirx.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Valirx-plc-Targeted-Anti-Cancer-Therapies-VAL201.pdf

I don’t make anything up. This is taken directly from the data, which is why I’m trying to discuss it. Read it as you’re clearly not familiar with the results so far

I’m not trying to say that stopping disease progression for a few months is the same as extending life, but it’s the start that we would be looking for, to further investigate.

I think Borgia mentioned it the other day. Makes sense as to why George would play down such an important part of the data, if he didn’t want to make out that the trials were going so well, in order for the company to fail and he ends up with the ip. I mean, 7/8 patients that Didn’t show any disease progression so far is a big deal, if it’s true. The entire point of this drug is to stop disease progression and maybe even partially reduce disease. This would obviously need to be for a longer period of time than the Initial six months here though. Xtandi essentially extends life by months, at the end of the day. Imagine if we get some partial reductions from the extension trial. That’s what I’m really hoping for.

If that is what they were doing, then they should go to jail for that, in my opinion...

And that’s why I asked the question about the imaging noise. As it’s so vague, does stable disease refer to just the original tumour, or metastatic ones also, in this case, as it doesn’t appear to have been backed up by any real explanation from what you say and from the results so far. It’s not clear and is just sitting there, almost Inocuously in a small table...when everything about this drug eventually boils down to the disease progression.

Thanks everyone that replied. Noise, it must have been so frustrating dealing with George! I’m with you, in that I’d like to see some actual PSA values too, not just doubling times.

It sounds promising that the stable disease was backed up by some good imaging at UCL and that leaves scope for some possible partial reductions in the extended group (fingers and everything else crossed!)...? 7/8 at stable disease seems like a very high success rate to me (at a good but not excellent level) over six months, considering that quite a few of the candidates had such short PSA doubling times initially. I was hoping this table was backed up by something solid, so maybe it was just a case of bad communication from George. I’m surprised he didn’t make more of a big deal of it. It’ll be interesting to see what they count as successful in the results. I mean, it’s there in the unpublished results in a table, so I’m hoping that it’ll be explained better in the full results too.

Bojo, you get everywhere! Saw you joined diurnal the other day too. I’m still doing my research here, thanks to sharegnomie, but I like what I’ve seen so far. Some very knowledgable posters here too, which is helping with the research! Good rise today, well done to everyone here :)

From what mathsprof and Stach are saying, we already have approval for a full phase 2 anyway. Data is collected over six months for each participant for the main body of the trial.