Member Info for PL75

Or the opposite, Alan was confident in moving on, possibly via a BED, after C4. Perhaps the curve is looking straighter after C5. They’re seeing some efficacy data in 1a so it’s definitely exciting. I like the RAHs idea of testing dosing regimes alongside dose levels. You’d need a larger trial to get statistically significant results though.

Ok, so back to why did he state they would definitely move on to phase 1b by declaring a BED alongside saying we’re nowhere near MTD? To me that would suggest the opposite, there’s no point increasing doses indefinitely towards an MTD as it’s not useful for phase 1b, I.e. they’re looking at a curve not a straight line.

1b looking more like 2 is brilliant news. Suspect Dr Tap has been tapping them up looking for an improved SOC

Someone at the Mail on Sunday owns shares, we’ve been featured a few times. Same for Shares mag.

Timster posted the trial design for you. Ask an adult to read it and explain it.

https://youtu.be/lVQ8X4sQwiw

Eggy, gain some basic comprehension, you’re making a massive ( o ) of yourself. We all know what a placebo is, you’ve not grasped it has nothing to with 1b which you claimed it did - because you’re thick as 🐷💩

https://youtu.be/E39GIysMevQ

Eggy, seems you’re too thick to understand your own quote. A double blind trial involves a placebo - google it, bright spark. No trial on the planet would include a placebo when there’s a SOC. You’ve already humiliated yourself once on this, but keep digging, plenty windows need cleaning. Otherwise, probably best if you follow Timster’s advice.

Eggy, I googled it and all I got was a picture of someone licking a window clean with their tongue. The caption referenced a horrific sulphuric stench 🤷‍♂️

Here’s what you said…. You’ll need another new account to deny your posting history.

‘To progress further to AVA6000 licencing they'll need a head to head clinical double blind trial.

That's all a fact and uncontestable I'm afraid. ‘

Perhaps you should have googled it 😂🤡😂🤡😂

Who cares if they were in discussions. It’s prudent.

Keep digging eggy, you’re clueless

Eggy, no one gives a 💩. It’s not a shock that they’ll need money at some point. No need to repeat it ad nauseum, you 🛎️🔚

Fancy having another go at FUDing the science?

So eggy is back on funding having embarrassed himself trying to talk about the science. So boring. We agreed the other day the shares could double. Funding isn’t a ‘concern’. You’ve no angles left, time for another new account where you can pretend to be positive again for a while. It works, the platform is proven, they have plenty cash and can raise more. It is inevitable. Suck it up.

Icecool, simply stop entertaining the sealion. It’s time we all just report him for disruption, call him a twat and move on. It’s utterly pathetic childish attention seeking idiocy from a brainless sad low life moron.

Dacia, just pack it in you prick. It’s pathetic.

Just report the attention seeking pillock. The board has been better without his disruption.

We’ve already shot it down, but if you’re in the mood for an afternoon scrap... (1) what if its dose dependent, be a shame to be ringing up the morgue to tell them you’re on the way when your mate on a later cohort is booking holidays and (2) it’s a safety trial, you already have your safety data, no denying additional data is beneficial, but as a participant I’d be very interested in increasing dose if they’re seeing better results.

Thanks for the responses, all makes sense. I'll consider that thought thoroughly shot down. I was just trying to see if we could smash a 3,000mg equivalent target as a headline for RAH. Incidentally RAH, still amazed that you haven't rounded up the 49 year problem to 50 years.

Asked it before, I'll ask it again so that we can get that number even higher. What if earlier cohort patients have been receiving the latest dosage signed off by the safety committee?

Bashing the science today. Not much to say eh? Live in hope,

Timster, the badly worded question was can we crack on 1b whilst continuing to find MTD in 1a. Same question a lot of us have. If we then find an MTD that suggests a higher dose in 1b can we up it. Think the answer will be yes, but at further time and cost.

Ps nice tie 😂. Sorry, found that one funny

Think you’ve answered your own question TL, probably additional cost and maybe not possible to vary the dose or at least it would result in effectively starting again every time you fancied changing the dose. If they’re are getting some efficacy data from 1a then continuing as they are makes sense to optimise 1b