The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
so this study um sought to compare the effect of antict 4 to a placebo and the placebo in this case was not a real Placebo it was a peptide vaccine called GP100 um to ask the question in patients with metastatic melanoma what would be the impact on median survival and overall survival
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the 10 months was for the antict 4 plus gp00 and 6.4 months for the GP100 alone that's the control and then 10.1 for the ntla 4 alone
at a glance you can see GP100 is not doing anything I mean that's the that's the first takeaway of comparing A to B
50% of the patients in the control group were dead in six months 50% of the patients in the treatment group both treatment groups were dead in 10 months
the 10 months was for the anti-la 4 plus GP 100 and 6.4 months for the gp00 alone that's the control and then 10.1 for the ntla 4 alone
so this study um sought to compare the effect of antict 4 to a placebo and the placebo in this case was not a real Placebo it was a peptide vaccine called GP 100 um to ask the question in patients with metastic melanoma what would be the impact on median survival and overall survival