(Total Views: 554)
Posted On: 07/22/2025 9:15:17 AM
Post# of 155727
Re: sherlock57 #155304
Yes, that Reddit post is worth a read. It would also explain why Tyler's LinkedIn post claimed some credit back in May, when he greeted the TNBC PR with:
"Big news! Several years in the making, and I'm very excited to be able to help see this through." Why would a lawyer claim any credit for "seeing through" lab results from years earlier?
I believe (ready to be corrected) that the safety review of the first 5 patients should take place after a full cycle of treatment -- which is four weeks, right? So after that half the patients will be dosed with 700 mg. I've read that PD-L1 elevation can be readily detected between 2 and 8 weeks. So 1) we recruit 5 patients (and keep recruiting while they get a cycle of treatment), then 2) the safety review occurs, and then 3) we wait 2-8 weeks. Depending on enrollment, that could be 6-12 weeks from the date we get 5 patients enrolled. Which could have already happened. Sometime September October, according to this timeline/scenario?
"Big news! Several years in the making, and I'm very excited to be able to help see this through." Why would a lawyer claim any credit for "seeing through" lab results from years earlier?
I believe (ready to be corrected) that the safety review of the first 5 patients should take place after a full cycle of treatment -- which is four weeks, right? So after that half the patients will be dosed with 700 mg. I've read that PD-L1 elevation can be readily detected between 2 and 8 weeks. So 1) we recruit 5 patients (and keep recruiting while they get a cycle of treatment), then 2) the safety review occurs, and then 3) we wait 2-8 weeks. Depending on enrollment, that could be 6-12 weeks from the date we get 5 patients enrolled. Which could have already happened. Sometime September October, according to this timeline/scenario?
(12)
(1)
