Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

BibiNoBra Bigmfneeps and 10 Subgroups:

bmfneppsss's profile picture

neeppsss

3,155 subscribers

13,586 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Nick Fuentes ranks European subgroups by their historical achievements. 🥇
1:26

Nick Fuentes ranks European subgroups by their historical achievements. 🥇

TB

29,500 просмотров • 16 дней назад

Different subgroups of black Americans. We ain’t a monolith ✊🏿
2:15

Different subgroups of black Americans. We ain’t a monolith ✊🏿

Ucey Swave

22,563 просмотров • 1 год назад

MENTIES SPECIAL: And we know it’s a little bit late, but congratulations on our 7th monthsary, Menties If times are tough and noises are too much, please, please, always remember that as long as we show our love in the loudest way, we will never hear the tiniest noise that will always try to break us. We are a family; we will share a table and a roof where we are in our safest place, where we understand and rest with each other. Special thanks to our officials and subgroups for all their community-based project initiatives and to our co-mentees who lend their voices to make this possible. Amitha ℘ ken unusualfangrl ada | ✨💜 chi @loveformikbrent #MentiesNews
12:34

MENTIES SPECIAL: And we know it’s a little bit late, but congratulations on our 7th monthsary, Menties If times are tough and noises are too much, please, please, always remember that as long as we show our love in the loudest way, we will never hear the tiniest noise that will always try to break us. We are a family; we will share a table and a roof where we are in our safest place, where we understand and rest with each other. Special thanks to our officials and subgroups for all their community-based project initiatives and to our co-mentees who lend their voices to make this possible. Amitha ℘ ken unusualfangrl ada | ✨💜 chi @loveformikbrent #MentiesNews

Menties News

69,735 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨 JUST IN: Speaker Johnson says the Democrats are in utter SHAMBLES with zero leadership "You've got AOC calling for her own negotiations on live TV! And you've got Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries still unable to articulate what it is they need to reopen the government." "Democrats can't even agree amongst themselves. You got different subgroups among them. You've got a few reasonable Democrats who know shutdowns hurt the people and they've already voted for our bill." "Then you've got others desperate to prop up the failures of Obamacare with no reforms whatsoever to make the program more affordable." "Now that Democrats have had their protest and publicity stunts, I just pray that they come to their senses and end this shutdown and reopen the government this week." "This was NEVER about a solution. It was about creating an issue." "Republicans are waiting. The American people are waiting."
1:02

🚨 JUST IN: Speaker Johnson says the Democrats are in utter SHAMBLES with zero leadership "You've got AOC calling for her own negotiations on live TV! And you've got Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries still unable to articulate what it is they need to reopen the government." "Democrats can't even agree amongst themselves. You got different subgroups among them. You've got a few reasonable Democrats who know shutdowns hurt the people and they've already voted for our bill." "Then you've got others desperate to prop up the failures of Obamacare with no reforms whatsoever to make the program more affordable." "Now that Democrats have had their protest and publicity stunts, I just pray that they come to their senses and end this shutdown and reopen the government this week." "This was NEVER about a solution. It was about creating an issue." "Republicans are waiting. The American people are waiting."

Eric Daugherty

194,148 просмотров • 1 год назад

MUST-WATCH: "I Wonder Why Evangelicals Are The Only Ones Who Love What Trump Is Doing Right Now?!" Top Pollster Mark Mitchell Responds To New Polling Data That Shows Trump's Approval Rating PLUMMETING Across All Christian Subgroups Except Evangelicals Who Clearly Love The US Doing Israel's Bidding In The Iran War! PLUS, Mitchell Drops Bombshell Intel On What The American Right Need To Know Ahead Of The 2026 Midterms! THIS IS A MUST-WATCH/SHARE FULL INTERVIEW! Mark Mitchell, Honest Pollster Alex Jones Network Harrison H. Smith ✞ 🔴WATCH/SHARE THE LIVE X STREAM NOW:
37:41

MUST-WATCH: "I Wonder Why Evangelicals Are The Only Ones Who Love What Trump Is Doing Right Now?!" Top Pollster Mark Mitchell Responds To New Polling Data That Shows Trump's Approval Rating PLUMMETING Across All Christian Subgroups Except Evangelicals Who Clearly Love The US Doing Israel's Bidding In The Iran War! PLUS, Mitchell Drops Bombshell Intel On What The American Right Need To Know Ahead Of The 2026 Midterms! THIS IS A MUST-WATCH/SHARE FULL INTERVIEW! Mark Mitchell, Honest Pollster Alex Jones Network Harrison H. Smith ✞ 🔴WATCH/SHARE THE LIVE X STREAM NOW:

Alex Jones

346,254 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

In a powerful critique of vaccine safety research, RFK Jr. exposes what he describes as a deliberate and dangerous scientific cover-up. He reveals that the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine have only conducted a single type of study—epidemiological—on just one vaccine (MMR) and one ingredient (thimerosal). Crucially, he states that in court, these institutions admitted they have never studied the vaccines given in the first six months of life—the very ones that could be linked to early autism. He challenges anyone to produce a single study on the DTP or Hib vaccines, asserting they cannot. Furthermore, he highlights a massive conflict of interest: the key studies are funded by the pharmaceutical industry (like the Wellcome Trust/GSK) or the NIH—entities he claims have a vested interest in concealing the truth. He concludes that epidemiological studies are "very easy to fix" and are designed to conceal harm to small, vulnerable subgroups—a fundamental flaw he calls "Epidemiology 101."
2:20

In a powerful critique of vaccine safety research, RFK Jr. exposes what he describes as a deliberate and dangerous scientific cover-up. He reveals that the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine have only conducted a single type of study—epidemiological—on just one vaccine (MMR) and one ingredient (thimerosal). Crucially, he states that in court, these institutions admitted they have never studied the vaccines given in the first six months of life—the very ones that could be linked to early autism. He challenges anyone to produce a single study on the DTP or Hib vaccines, asserting they cannot. Furthermore, he highlights a massive conflict of interest: the key studies are funded by the pharmaceutical industry (like the Wellcome Trust/GSK) or the NIH—entities he claims have a vested interest in concealing the truth. He concludes that epidemiological studies are "very easy to fix" and are designed to conceal harm to small, vulnerable subgroups—a fundamental flaw he calls "Epidemiology 101."

Camus

33,272 просмотров • 1 год назад

🔥🚨BREAKING NEWS: The FBI has issued a warning about a newly discovered pedophilic, Satanist extortion cult targeting children online using platforms including Roblox, Discord, Twitch, Soundcloud, and Telegram to find new victims. The FBI said in their public notice that the cult uses many names, including 676, 764, CVLT, Court, Kaskar, Harm Nation, Leak Society, and H3ll, but “continuously evolve and form subgroups under different monikers.” “To gain access to a majority of these groups, prospective members are required to live-stream or upload videos depicting their minor victims harming animals or committing self-harm, suicide, murder, or other acts of violence,” the FBI said. “The key motivators of these groups are to gain notoriety and rise in status within their groups.” According to the FBI notice, the groups target minors between the ages of 8 and 17 years old, especially LGBTQ+ youth, racial minorities, and those who struggle with a variety of mental health issues, such as depression and suicidal ideation. “The groups use extortion and blackmail tactics, such as threatening to SWAT or DOX the minor victims, if they do not comply with the groups’ requests, manipulate and extort minors into producing CSAM and videos depicting animal cruelty and self-harm,” the FBI warned. The cult is linked to high-profile crimes, including a German teenager accused of murdering his foster family in Romania.
4:32

🔥🚨BREAKING NEWS: The FBI has issued a warning about a newly discovered pedophilic, Satanist extortion cult targeting children online using platforms including Roblox, Discord, Twitch, Soundcloud, and Telegram to find new victims. The FBI said in their public notice that the cult uses many names, including 676, 764, CVLT, Court, Kaskar, Harm Nation, Leak Society, and H3ll, but “continuously evolve and form subgroups under different monikers.” “To gain access to a majority of these groups, prospective members are required to live-stream or upload videos depicting their minor victims harming animals or committing self-harm, suicide, murder, or other acts of violence,” the FBI said. “The key motivators of these groups are to gain notoriety and rise in status within their groups.” According to the FBI notice, the groups target minors between the ages of 8 and 17 years old, especially LGBTQ+ youth, racial minorities, and those who struggle with a variety of mental health issues, such as depression and suicidal ideation. “The groups use extortion and blackmail tactics, such as threatening to SWAT or DOX the minor victims, if they do not comply with the groups’ requests, manipulate and extort minors into producing CSAM and videos depicting animal cruelty and self-harm,” the FBI warned. The cult is linked to high-profile crimes, including a German teenager accused of murdering his foster family in Romania.

Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives

2,594,884 просмотров • 1 год назад

The FBI has issued a warning about a newly discovered pedophilic, Satanist extortion cult targeting children online using platforms including Roblox, Discord, Twitch, Soundcloud, and Telegram to find new victims. The FBI said in their public notice that the cult uses many names, including 676, 764, CVLT, Court, Kaskar, Harm Nation, Leak Society, and H3ll, but “continuously evolve and form subgroups under different monikers.” “To gain access to a majority of these groups, prospective members are required to live-stream or upload videos depicting their minor victims harming animals or committing self-harm, suicide, murder, or other acts of violence,” the FBI said. “The key motivators of these groups are to gain notoriety and rise in status within their groups.” According to the FBI notice, the groups target minors between the ages of 8 and 17 years old, especially LGBTQ+ youth, racial minorities, and those who struggle with a variety of mental health issues, such as depression and suicidal ideation. “The groups use extortion and blackmail tactics, such as threatening to SWAT or DOX the minor victims, if they do not comply with the groups’ requests, manipulate and extort minors into producing CSAM and videos depicting animal cruelty and self-harm,” the FBI warned. The cult is linked to high-profile crimes, including a German teenager accused of murdering his foster family in Romania. Cc: Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives, 2025 post.
4:32

The FBI has issued a warning about a newly discovered pedophilic, Satanist extortion cult targeting children online using platforms including Roblox, Discord, Twitch, Soundcloud, and Telegram to find new victims. The FBI said in their public notice that the cult uses many names, including 676, 764, CVLT, Court, Kaskar, Harm Nation, Leak Society, and H3ll, but “continuously evolve and form subgroups under different monikers.” “To gain access to a majority of these groups, prospective members are required to live-stream or upload videos depicting their minor victims harming animals or committing self-harm, suicide, murder, or other acts of violence,” the FBI said. “The key motivators of these groups are to gain notoriety and rise in status within their groups.” According to the FBI notice, the groups target minors between the ages of 8 and 17 years old, especially LGBTQ+ youth, racial minorities, and those who struggle with a variety of mental health issues, such as depression and suicidal ideation. “The groups use extortion and blackmail tactics, such as threatening to SWAT or DOX the minor victims, if they do not comply with the groups’ requests, manipulate and extort minors into producing CSAM and videos depicting animal cruelty and self-harm,” the FBI warned. The cult is linked to high-profile crimes, including a German teenager accused of murdering his foster family in Romania. Cc: Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives, 2025 post.

Story Web

376,763 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

USCIRF Commissioner Asif Mahmood wants "dialogue" with RSS when he has lost the debate on FACTS. THIS IS AN EXHAUSTIVE LINE-BY-LINE 7-PT TAKEDOWN OF HIS USCIRF REPORT ON RSS, MODI & INDIA. 1. RSS “SUBGROUPS” & VIOLENCE MISCHIEVOUS USCIRF CONFLATION: “Members of RSS subgroups have perpetrated violent attacks against religious minorities, including Christians, Dalits, Muslims, and Sikhs.” WHY IT'S A DOUBLE STANDARD: USCIRF says “members of RSS subgroups”, not that the RSS ordered, funded or organised these attacks. If the conduct of a member or affiliate automatically establishes the culpability of the parent organisation, then should the Cong party be held institutionally responsible for 1984 anti-Sikh riots where Cong leaders were convicted? 2. “HINDUTVA INHERENTLY DISCRIMINATES” MISCHIEVOUS USCIRF ACCUSATION: “The BJP has enforced policies that closely align with the RSS' Hindutva ideology, inherently discriminating against religious minority communities.” WHY IT'S A SWEEPING STATEMENT WITHOUT EVIDENCE: “Inherently discriminating” is a conclusion. Where has USCIRF identified specific discriminatory provisions. Infact, under BJP rule in Karnataka, when backward-class categories were reorganised in 2023, Christians and Jains remained eligible for reservation under Category 2D 3. “RSS SEEKS TO EXCLUDE NON-HINDUS” UNSUBSTANTIATED USCIRF ACCUSATION: The RSS promotes a Hindu 'Rastra' that excludes Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Parsis and other religious communities. WHY IT'S TOO BROAD: Where is the RSS resolution saying “Muslims cannot be citizens,” “Christians cannot hold office,” or “non-Hindus must lose constitutional rights”? In fact RSS engages minorities through Muslim Rashtriya Manch. 4. CAA = ANTI-MUSLIM CITIZENSHIP LAW USCIRF ACCUSATION: The government has discriminated against Muslims through the Citizenship Amendment Act. WHY ITS FACTUALLY WRONG: The CAA creates an accelerated citizenship route for specified persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. It does not contain a provision stripping an INDIAN Muslim of existing CITIZENSHIP. In any case the CAA draws upon the logic of U.S. laws like the Lautenberg-Specter Amendment. 5. NRC “FORCIBLY EXPELLED MUSLIM CITIZENS” USCIRF ACCUSATION: “Authorities have also forcefully expelled Muslim citizens in Assam under the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).” WHY IT'S FACTUALLY WRONG: The Assam NRC was published in 2019, but the legal process has not been operationalised to the point USCIRF's language suggests. The Gauhati High Court has recorded that the final NRC has not been notified in the Official Gazette, has not been given effect by the Government of India, and rejection slips have not been issued. 6. FCRA = THREAT TO FAITH-BASED ORGANISATIONS USCIRF ACCUSATION: “Pending amendments to the FCRA [are] threatening the ability of faith-based organizations to continue their operations in the country.” WHY IT'S MISLEADING: FCRA regulates foreign contributions, not religious belief or the right to practise religion. Faith-based organisations can operate in India; the question is whether and under what conditions they can receive foreign funding. The United States itself has FARA, which regulates certain activities undertaken on behalf of foreign principals. If the U.S. can, why can't India? 7. UMAR KHALID = PERSECUTED FOR BEING MUSLIM MISCHIEVOUS USCIRF CONFLATION: “Religious minorities—like Umar Khalid, who has been detained since 2020 for leading peaceful protests opposing the religiously discriminatory CAA—often spend years in jail without a trial.” WHY IT'S SLANDER: USCIRF presents Khalid's detention as though he were imprisoned for opposing the CAA. But SC'S Jan 2026 order records the prosecution material alleging that Khalid played a “central and formative role” in the violence and mobilisation.
0:51

USCIRF Commissioner Asif Mahmood wants "dialogue" with RSS when he has lost the debate on FACTS. THIS IS AN EXHAUSTIVE LINE-BY-LINE 7-PT TAKEDOWN OF HIS USCIRF REPORT ON RSS, MODI & INDIA. 1. RSS “SUBGROUPS” & VIOLENCE MISCHIEVOUS USCIRF CONFLATION: “Members of RSS subgroups have perpetrated violent attacks against religious minorities, including Christians, Dalits, Muslims, and Sikhs.” WHY IT'S A DOUBLE STANDARD: USCIRF says “members of RSS subgroups”, not that the RSS ordered, funded or organised these attacks. If the conduct of a member or affiliate automatically establishes the culpability of the parent organisation, then should the Cong party be held institutionally responsible for 1984 anti-Sikh riots where Cong leaders were convicted? 2. “HINDUTVA INHERENTLY DISCRIMINATES” MISCHIEVOUS USCIRF ACCUSATION: “The BJP has enforced policies that closely align with the RSS' Hindutva ideology, inherently discriminating against religious minority communities.” WHY IT'S A SWEEPING STATEMENT WITHOUT EVIDENCE: “Inherently discriminating” is a conclusion. Where has USCIRF identified specific discriminatory provisions. Infact, under BJP rule in Karnataka, when backward-class categories were reorganised in 2023, Christians and Jains remained eligible for reservation under Category 2D 3. “RSS SEEKS TO EXCLUDE NON-HINDUS” UNSUBSTANTIATED USCIRF ACCUSATION: The RSS promotes a Hindu 'Rastra' that excludes Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Parsis and other religious communities. WHY IT'S TOO BROAD: Where is the RSS resolution saying “Muslims cannot be citizens,” “Christians cannot hold office,” or “non-Hindus must lose constitutional rights”? In fact RSS engages minorities through Muslim Rashtriya Manch. 4. CAA = ANTI-MUSLIM CITIZENSHIP LAW USCIRF ACCUSATION: The government has discriminated against Muslims through the Citizenship Amendment Act. WHY ITS FACTUALLY WRONG: The CAA creates an accelerated citizenship route for specified persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. It does not contain a provision stripping an INDIAN Muslim of existing CITIZENSHIP. In any case the CAA draws upon the logic of U.S. laws like the Lautenberg-Specter Amendment. 5. NRC “FORCIBLY EXPELLED MUSLIM CITIZENS” USCIRF ACCUSATION: “Authorities have also forcefully expelled Muslim citizens in Assam under the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).” WHY IT'S FACTUALLY WRONG: The Assam NRC was published in 2019, but the legal process has not been operationalised to the point USCIRF's language suggests. The Gauhati High Court has recorded that the final NRC has not been notified in the Official Gazette, has not been given effect by the Government of India, and rejection slips have not been issued. 6. FCRA = THREAT TO FAITH-BASED ORGANISATIONS USCIRF ACCUSATION: “Pending amendments to the FCRA [are] threatening the ability of faith-based organizations to continue their operations in the country.” WHY IT'S MISLEADING: FCRA regulates foreign contributions, not religious belief or the right to practise religion. Faith-based organisations can operate in India; the question is whether and under what conditions they can receive foreign funding. The United States itself has FARA, which regulates certain activities undertaken on behalf of foreign principals. If the U.S. can, why can't India? 7. UMAR KHALID = PERSECUTED FOR BEING MUSLIM MISCHIEVOUS USCIRF CONFLATION: “Religious minorities—like Umar Khalid, who has been detained since 2020 for leading peaceful protests opposing the religiously discriminatory CAA—often spend years in jail without a trial.” WHY IT'S SLANDER: USCIRF presents Khalid's detention as though he were imprisoned for opposing the CAA. But SC'S Jan 2026 order records the prosecution material alleging that Khalid played a “central and formative role” in the violence and mobilisation.

Rahul Shivshankar

87,237 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

MONDAY BROADCAST: Iran War Enters Fragile Diplomatic Pause As Mediators Try To Restore Interim Ceasefire, Tehran-Backed Groups Still Launching Drones Around Region, Hormuz Effectively Closed! Trump Giving Peace Talks A Chance But Ready For “Strong Military Action” If They Fail! PLUS, Top Pollster Mark Mitchell Analyzes To New Polling Data That Shows Trump's Approval Rating PLUMMETING Across All Christian Subgroups Except Evangelicals Who Clearly Love The US Doing Israel's Bidding In The Iran War! FINALLY, Former Green Beret & World Renowned Combat Journalist / Geopolitical Analyst Michael Yon Responds To Ukraine's Long-Range Drone Strike On Iranian Ship & Drops Bombshell Intel On The New World War, Imminent Famine Crisis, & More! THIS IS MUST-WATCH/SHARE INFO! — FULL SHOW 7/27/26
3:54:44

MONDAY BROADCAST: Iran War Enters Fragile Diplomatic Pause As Mediators Try To Restore Interim Ceasefire, Tehran-Backed Groups Still Launching Drones Around Region, Hormuz Effectively Closed! Trump Giving Peace Talks A Chance But Ready For “Strong Military Action” If They Fail! PLUS, Top Pollster Mark Mitchell Analyzes To New Polling Data That Shows Trump's Approval Rating PLUMMETING Across All Christian Subgroups Except Evangelicals Who Clearly Love The US Doing Israel's Bidding In The Iran War! FINALLY, Former Green Beret & World Renowned Combat Journalist / Geopolitical Analyst Michael Yon Responds To Ukraine's Long-Range Drone Strike On Iranian Ship & Drops Bombshell Intel On The New World War, Imminent Famine Crisis, & More! THIS IS MUST-WATCH/SHARE INFO! — FULL SHOW 7/27/26

Alex Jones

96,939 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

This whole journey feels unreal, and we’re just so genuinely happy, proud, and thankful. We did this together. From planning to hyping, from filling the seats to cheering our hearts out, this was a true labor of love organized and hosted by JMFyang Official with the help of amazing collaborators. Also, a huge, heartfelt shoutout to all our chapters, affiliates, and subgroups for their dedication, hardwork, and unwavering support: JMFYANG International, JMFYANG Cebu Official, JMFYANG GenSan Chapter, JMFYANG Marbel Chapter, Ates of JMFYANG, JMFYANG Abroad Official, JMFYANG Bisdak-Davao, Thirsties of JMFYANG, chOAsen Besties, Kakosa, and Chismasters. What started as a fan dream turned into a successful and unforgettable experience because of everyone who believed in it. Maraming salamat to all our sponsors and donors who trusted and supported this project. Thank you to Regal Entertainment Inc. for giving our mains JM Ibarra and Fyang Smith ✨ this incredible opportunity. Special thanks to Ms. Pepper of Regal Entertainment for all the guidance, assistance, and constant support throughout this journey. And of course, to our JMFyang, thank you for being our inspiration and our drive. You gave us something worth fighting for, celebrating, and coming together for. You motivate us to do more, dream bigger, and love harder as a fandom. To every bestie who hyped, shared, attended, and showed up for every single block screening, this success belongs to you too. Ramdam na ramdam namin ang pagmamahal at solid support niyo. 💛 Still can’t wipe the smile off our faces watching this block screening compilation for Shake Rattle and Roll: Evil Origins. This may be the end of this chapter, but we are more than ready for the next challenge. Excited, proud, and full of confidence, we’re already gearing up to give more love, energy, and all out support for JMFyang’s first solo movie, IRL. If this journey proved anything, it’s that together, we can make anything possible. From the bottom of our hearts, thank you everyone. We’re so proud of what we’ve built together.
2:07

This whole journey feels unreal, and we’re just so genuinely happy, proud, and thankful. We did this together. From planning to hyping, from filling the seats to cheering our hearts out, this was a true labor of love organized and hosted by JMFyang Official with the help of amazing collaborators. Also, a huge, heartfelt shoutout to all our chapters, affiliates, and subgroups for their dedication, hardwork, and unwavering support: JMFYANG International, JMFYANG Cebu Official, JMFYANG GenSan Chapter, JMFYANG Marbel Chapter, Ates of JMFYANG, JMFYANG Abroad Official, JMFYANG Bisdak-Davao, Thirsties of JMFYANG, chOAsen Besties, Kakosa, and Chismasters. What started as a fan dream turned into a successful and unforgettable experience because of everyone who believed in it. Maraming salamat to all our sponsors and donors who trusted and supported this project. Thank you to Regal Entertainment Inc. for giving our mains JM Ibarra and Fyang Smith ✨ this incredible opportunity. Special thanks to Ms. Pepper of Regal Entertainment for all the guidance, assistance, and constant support throughout this journey. And of course, to our JMFyang, thank you for being our inspiration and our drive. You gave us something worth fighting for, celebrating, and coming together for. You motivate us to do more, dream bigger, and love harder as a fandom. To every bestie who hyped, shared, attended, and showed up for every single block screening, this success belongs to you too. Ramdam na ramdam namin ang pagmamahal at solid support niyo. 💛 Still can’t wipe the smile off our faces watching this block screening compilation for Shake Rattle and Roll: Evil Origins. This may be the end of this chapter, but we are more than ready for the next challenge. Excited, proud, and full of confidence, we’re already gearing up to give more love, energy, and all out support for JMFyang’s first solo movie, IRL. If this journey proved anything, it’s that together, we can make anything possible. From the bottom of our hearts, thank you everyone. We’re so proud of what we’ve built together.

JMFyang Official

21,917 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

𝑂𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑗𝑜𝑦𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑔ℎ. But for some, laughter isn’t something they get to share every day. Especially for those who live beside creeks, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐬𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠. So for our 7th monthsary, we partnered with 𝐖𝐞𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 to bring love and laughter to these children & give them a day where 𝑗𝑜𝑦 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑠. With the help of our generous sponsors, kind-hearted Menties who donated, and our ever-supportive subgroups— @MikBrentGlobal, OINTMENTIES, closed —, MENTEAS HIVE, MikBrent Official Cebu Chapter, MIKBRENT OFFICIAL CALABARZON CHAPTER, MikBrent OFC Gensan Chapter — we threw them a classic 𝐏𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐲 𝐁𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 that many children dream of experiencing, even just once in their lives. It was a day full of love, hope, and smiles, proof that even 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝑗𝑜𝑦 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑎 𝑤𝑎𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑡. And as we left that day, our hearts carried one prayer: 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐧, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐰𝐢𝐦. To Mika Salamanca and brent manalo, the inspiration behind everything that we do, thank you for your hearts. 𝑊𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑦 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑢𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑒 𝑔𝑜. Happy 7th Monthsary, MikBrent and Menties! Here’s to more months and years of spreading love, light, and laughter, not just within our fandom, but to every corner that needs it most. 7FINITY WITH MIKBRENT
4:07

𝑂𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑗𝑜𝑦𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑔ℎ. But for some, laughter isn’t something they get to share every day. Especially for those who live beside creeks, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐬𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠. So for our 7th monthsary, we partnered with 𝐖𝐞𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 to bring love and laughter to these children & give them a day where 𝑗𝑜𝑦 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑠. With the help of our generous sponsors, kind-hearted Menties who donated, and our ever-supportive subgroups— @MikBrentGlobal, OINTMENTIES, closed —, MENTEAS HIVE, MikBrent Official Cebu Chapter, MIKBRENT OFFICIAL CALABARZON CHAPTER, MikBrent OFC Gensan Chapter — we threw them a classic 𝐏𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐲 𝐁𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 that many children dream of experiencing, even just once in their lives. It was a day full of love, hope, and smiles, proof that even 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝑗𝑜𝑦 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑎 𝑤𝑎𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑡. And as we left that day, our hearts carried one prayer: 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐧, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐰𝐢𝐦. To Mika Salamanca and brent manalo, the inspiration behind everything that we do, thank you for your hearts. 𝑊𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑦 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑢𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑒 𝑔𝑜. Happy 7th Monthsary, MikBrent and Menties! Here’s to more months and years of spreading love, light, and laughter, not just within our fandom, but to every corner that needs it most. 7FINITY WITH MIKBRENT

MIKBRENT OFC

78,591 просмотров • 1 год назад

I see that this video has made rounds on this platform. These days, one has to clarify everything because most of us see everything to the lenses of our bias. Few things to note. 1.For the records, I have been an avid Peter Obi supporter. I posted a picture of us on this platform. Ironically, just about a month ago, I praised him for his culture of modesty, and how Christians should emulate that. 2.There are indeed Christians who rather than working towards a great nation are ‘only’ praying that the nation “moves forward”. No amount of prayer will be substitute for productive labour, and electing the right people to lead the nation. What then is my issue with the statement? insinuate that instead of vigils we should have night shifts is a fallacy of false dilemma. Even in more developed countries, most people don’t work night shifts. Church Vigils are not the reason people don’t work night shifts. If you want more morning, afternoon or night shifts, hold the government accountable! Even then, let people do what they want to do with their personal time 2.Almost no Church holds vigils “Mondays to Fridays and both morning and night”. I know this will still fly over some heads so let me break it down; ⁃Thrice a week may be a lot but it is not everyday. ⁃Having 20 days of vigil is still not everyday. ⁃Also, most multiple meetings in Churches are had by different subgroups of people in Church and not everyone. So why say “Mondays to Friday”? It’s called a “straw man” argument- to present the worst possible scenario so you can win an argument. I said, if the average Christian does not go to Church more than twice (or at most thrice) a week, the generalization reflects a bias. Going to the gym that many times is not too much. Socializing that many times a week is not too much. But going to Church is hurting the productivity of the nation? That is simply dishonest. If you aren’t a believer and you see no point in spiritual exercise, I understand. But even then, people should have the right to do what they want with their personal time. 4.The Church has helped the nations productivity in a tangible way. There are a lot of soft skills that are developed in Church. Music, photography, videography to mention a few. Even most of the secular artistes horned their gift in Church. This is not to discredit the person of Mr Peter Obi. I just beg to differ, which I very well have the right to as a stakeholder. I remain a supporter of his ideologies. Regards.
1:30

I see that this video has made rounds on this platform. These days, one has to clarify everything because most of us see everything to the lenses of our bias. Few things to note. 1.For the records, I have been an avid Peter Obi supporter. I posted a picture of us on this platform. Ironically, just about a month ago, I praised him for his culture of modesty, and how Christians should emulate that. 2.There are indeed Christians who rather than working towards a great nation are ‘only’ praying that the nation “moves forward”. No amount of prayer will be substitute for productive labour, and electing the right people to lead the nation. What then is my issue with the statement? insinuate that instead of vigils we should have night shifts is a fallacy of false dilemma. Even in more developed countries, most people don’t work night shifts. Church Vigils are not the reason people don’t work night shifts. If you want more morning, afternoon or night shifts, hold the government accountable! Even then, let people do what they want to do with their personal time 2.Almost no Church holds vigils “Mondays to Fridays and both morning and night”. I know this will still fly over some heads so let me break it down; ⁃Thrice a week may be a lot but it is not everyday. ⁃Having 20 days of vigil is still not everyday. ⁃Also, most multiple meetings in Churches are had by different subgroups of people in Church and not everyone. So why say “Mondays to Friday”? It’s called a “straw man” argument- to present the worst possible scenario so you can win an argument. I said, if the average Christian does not go to Church more than twice (or at most thrice) a week, the generalization reflects a bias. Going to the gym that many times is not too much. Socializing that many times a week is not too much. But going to Church is hurting the productivity of the nation? That is simply dishonest. If you aren’t a believer and you see no point in spiritual exercise, I understand. But even then, people should have the right to do what they want with their personal time. 4.The Church has helped the nations productivity in a tangible way. There are a lot of soft skills that are developed in Church. Music, photography, videography to mention a few. Even most of the secular artistes horned their gift in Church. This is not to discredit the person of Mr Peter Obi. I just beg to differ, which I very well have the right to as a stakeholder. I remain a supporter of his ideologies. Regards.

Apostle Emmanuel Iren

2,839,237 просмотров • 2 лет назад

The OncoAlert WEEKLY RoundUp 🚨 Covering the TOP of the week October 3-9, 2025 REGISTER at OR Discussing: 🇺🇸FDA Approves Lurbinectedin + Atezolizumab as New Maintenance Option in ES-SCLC ➡️ IMforte trial shows OS & PFS benefit after 1L chemoimmunotherapy. #LungCancer #SCLC 🔗 News from Industry Datopotamab Deruxtecan Improves OS & PFS vs Chemo in TNBC ➡️ TROPION-Breast02 marks the first OS benefit in 1L mTNBC ineligible for IO. #BreastCancer 🔗 Breast Cancer Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Incidence Rising Across All Groups ➡️ ILC now >10% of U.S. breast cancers—distinct biology needs tailored research. 🔗 Post-CDK4/6 Progression: Which Therapies Stand Out? ➡️ Network meta-analysis highlights ribociclib+ET, capivasertib+fulvestrant & elacestrant as top options. 🔗 GI Oncology Tislelizumab + Chemo Shows Comparable Efficacy, Improved Safety vs PD-1 Regimens in Gastric Cancer ➡️ Supports tislelizumab as viable 1L option for HER2– advanced disease #GastricCancer #Immunotherapy 🔗 Genomic Alterations Predict Outcomes in BTC Treated with Cis/Gem/Durva➡️ HRD/BRCAness & high TMB linked to better survival #PrecisionOncology 🔗 GU Oncology Global Survey Defines Real-World Use of EV + Pembrolizumab in Advanced UC ➡️ Neuropathy, ECOG ≥3 & tumor histology shape 1L treatment decisions. #BladderCancer 🔗 MRI-Based Screening Improves Detection of Clinically Significant #ProstateCancer ➡️ MRI as a second-stage test reduces unnecessary biopsies & overdiagnosis. 🔗 Lung Cancer ICIs ± Chemo Outperform BRAF/MEK Inhibitors in BRAFV600E-Mutated NSCLC ➡️ FRONT-BRAF study shows OS advantage with immunotherapy, esp. in select subgroups🫁 #LungCancer #NSCLC 🔗 Gynecologic Oncology Stage IA Uterine Carcinosarcoma Without Myoinvasion Carries High Recurrence Risk ➡️ 30% relapse; chemo shows no🚫survival benefit in this rare disease. #GYNOnc #EndometrialCancer 🔗 Stephen V Liu, MD Rami Manochakian MD, FASCO Elvina Almuradova Oncology Brothers Tuğba Başoğlu, MD David Heredia. Dr. Antonio Calles 🫁🚭 Vivek Subbiah, MD Mustafa Özdoğan, MD ilyas sahin, MD Amirali Karimi, MD Alessandro Di Federico Ella Marushchenko GBOT Alerta Yael Waknine Jianjiao Ni Ashraf Saad, bridging Glycobiology and Oncology! Marcelo Negrao Fawzi Abu Rous, MD Andrea De Giglio, MD PhD Adam Barsouk, MD Diego A. Díaz-García Doğukan Saydan Erika Hamilton, MD, FASCO Abi Siva MD Stephanie A. Haddad, DO Alexis LeVee, MD Kazuki Nozawa, MD Raffaele Colombo Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, FASCO Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, FASCO Tari King MD Reshma Jagsi Mylin Torres Carmine De Angelis Roberto Buonaiuto Dr Sarah Sammons Nieves Martinez Lago MD PhD andrea casadei gardini Lorenza Rimassa Inma_Gallego Enrique Grande Félix Guerrero-Ramos Syed A Hussain Dr. Neeraj Rajput
4:43

The OncoAlert WEEKLY RoundUp 🚨 Covering the TOP of the week October 3-9, 2025 REGISTER at OR Discussing: 🇺🇸FDA Approves Lurbinectedin + Atezolizumab as New Maintenance Option in ES-SCLC ➡️ IMforte trial shows OS & PFS benefit after 1L chemoimmunotherapy. #LungCancer #SCLC 🔗 News from Industry Datopotamab Deruxtecan Improves OS & PFS vs Chemo in TNBC ➡️ TROPION-Breast02 marks the first OS benefit in 1L mTNBC ineligible for IO. #BreastCancer 🔗 Breast Cancer Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Incidence Rising Across All Groups ➡️ ILC now >10% of U.S. breast cancers—distinct biology needs tailored research. 🔗 Post-CDK4/6 Progression: Which Therapies Stand Out? ➡️ Network meta-analysis highlights ribociclib+ET, capivasertib+fulvestrant & elacestrant as top options. 🔗 GI Oncology Tislelizumab + Chemo Shows Comparable Efficacy, Improved Safety vs PD-1 Regimens in Gastric Cancer ➡️ Supports tislelizumab as viable 1L option for HER2– advanced disease #GastricCancer #Immunotherapy 🔗 Genomic Alterations Predict Outcomes in BTC Treated with Cis/Gem/Durva➡️ HRD/BRCAness & high TMB linked to better survival #PrecisionOncology 🔗 GU Oncology Global Survey Defines Real-World Use of EV + Pembrolizumab in Advanced UC ➡️ Neuropathy, ECOG ≥3 & tumor histology shape 1L treatment decisions. #BladderCancer 🔗 MRI-Based Screening Improves Detection of Clinically Significant #ProstateCancer ➡️ MRI as a second-stage test reduces unnecessary biopsies & overdiagnosis. 🔗 Lung Cancer ICIs ± Chemo Outperform BRAF/MEK Inhibitors in BRAFV600E-Mutated NSCLC ➡️ FRONT-BRAF study shows OS advantage with immunotherapy, esp. in select subgroups🫁 #LungCancer #NSCLC 🔗 Gynecologic Oncology Stage IA Uterine Carcinosarcoma Without Myoinvasion Carries High Recurrence Risk ➡️ 30% relapse; chemo shows no🚫survival benefit in this rare disease. #GYNOnc #EndometrialCancer 🔗 Stephen V Liu, MD Rami Manochakian MD, FASCO Elvina Almuradova Oncology Brothers Tuğba Başoğlu, MD David Heredia. Dr. Antonio Calles 🫁🚭 Vivek Subbiah, MD Mustafa Özdoğan, MD ilyas sahin, MD Amirali Karimi, MD Alessandro Di Federico Ella Marushchenko GBOT Alerta Yael Waknine Jianjiao Ni Ashraf Saad, bridging Glycobiology and Oncology! Marcelo Negrao Fawzi Abu Rous, MD Andrea De Giglio, MD PhD Adam Barsouk, MD Diego A. Díaz-García Doğukan Saydan Erika Hamilton, MD, FASCO Abi Siva MD Stephanie A. Haddad, DO Alexis LeVee, MD Kazuki Nozawa, MD Raffaele Colombo Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, FASCO Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, FASCO Tari King MD Reshma Jagsi Mylin Torres Carmine De Angelis Roberto Buonaiuto Dr Sarah Sammons Nieves Martinez Lago MD PhD andrea casadei gardini Lorenza Rimassa Inma_Gallego Enrique Grande Félix Guerrero-Ramos Syed A Hussain Dr. Neeraj Rajput

OncoAlert

34,500 просмотров • 1 год назад

$NWBO #𝗗𝗖𝗩𝗮𝘅-𝗟: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗺𝘀 A short, plain-language reading of the survival evidence for DCVax-L in #glioblastoma, and what it means under the MHRAgovuk guideline on external control arms. 📊 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗢𝗡𝗘: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗙𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗗, 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗜𝗧 𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗦 DCVax-L more than doubled five-year survival, and the benefit is durability: a subset gets lasting disease control and simply stays alive. 💉 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴 𝗶𝘀 DCVax-L is a personalized cancer vaccine for glioblastoma, the deadliest form of brain cancer and a designated orphan disease. It is a living drug: its active ingredient is the patient's own immune cells, primed with proteins from that patient's surgically removed tumor, so the immune system learns to attack the cancer. Unlike a chemical drug that is metabolized and cleared, it switches on a living immune response that keeps working long after the injection. Glioblastoma comes back in almost everyone: even with the full standard of surgery, radiation, and temozolomide chemotherapy, most patients live under two years, and only about one in twenty reaches five. DCVax-L is given on top of that standard care, not in place of it: every patient in the trial received surgery, radiation, and temozolomide, and the vaccine was added to it, so the comparison measures what the vaccine adds. For two decades, nearly every new drug tried in this disease has failed. That is the backdrop against which any positive result must be judged. 📈 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 In a Phase 3 trial of 331 patients, those who received DCVax-L lived longer. At the median the gain looks modest, about three months (19.3 versus 16.5). The number that matters sits at the far end of the survival curve: more than twice as many vaccine patients were alive at five years, 13.0% versus 5.7%, and a few reached ten years in a disease that usually kills within three. In patients whose tumor had already returned, the effect was larger still, cutting the risk of death by about 42%. 👥 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 The benefit was not confined to the easy cases. Of the six prespecified subgroups the trial examined, every single one favored DCVax-L, and there was no group in which it did worse than standard care. The largest gains came in patients whose tumors carry MGMT methylation, who reached a median survival of 30.2 months from randomization against 21.3 for the controls. But even the hardest-to-treat patients, whose tumors lack that methylation, resist standard chemotherapy, and carry the worst prognosis in this disease, still came out ahead with the vaccine, at a hazard ratio of 0.93. A treatment that helps across the whole population, and helps most where the biology is most favorable, is acting like a real drug. 📉 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 That five-year number is the whole story, and the median buries it. Almost every treatment that ever helped in glioblastoma did the same modest thing: it slid the survival curve a few months to the right, then let it fall back. Doubling five-year survival is different in kind. A three-month gain at the median cannot, by itself, double the fraction alive at five years. The only shape that produces both numbers is a split: most patients get the small delay the median measures, while a subset gets durable disease control that lasts for years, well past where glioblastoma should have ended them. That subset is the long tail of the curve, and it is where the benefit lives. A median ignores extremes, the way a town's median income tells you nothing about its millionaires. The real story is not a longer delay; it is that a meaningful share of patients simply stay alive. 🧬 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲 The tail is not luck. It is what this biology is built to produce. The vaccine carries proteins from the patient's own tumor, so it aims the immune system at whatever that tumor is made of, not a fixed short list of targets. And it amplifies: one trained immune cell drives many others that multiply into cancer-killers. Andres Salazar, the neurologist who developed poly-ICLC into the clinical adjuvant given with the vaccine, puts it in a line: you start the fire, and you keep it burning. A response like that does not produce a one-time bump. It builds and widens over time. What matters is not just that a response forms, but what kind. Dendritic cells are the immune system's master switch for that, the cells that set what kind of attack the body mounts, and this vaccine is built from them. It drives what immunologists call a type 1 polarized response: an interferon-driven, cytotoxic program aimed squarely at the tumor. That direction comes from the vaccine itself; the poly-ICLC adjuvant given with it drives the same interferon program and sustains it. That is the active ingredient, and it has been measured. In UCLA studies of this approach, the patients whose immune systems mounted the strongest interferon response lived the longest. The response also spreads. In a different cancer, a vaccine carried on this same poly-ICLC adjuvant drove more than 70% of a patient's cancer-killing T cells to target proteins that were never in the vaccine: the immune system outgrew its original targets and went after the rest of the tumor on its own. This is called epitope spreading, and it is not particular to one tumor; it is what this kind of response does, and it is the kind of response DCVax-L builds. That breadth is the likeliest thing separating the long-term survivors from everyone else, a response that breaks past its targets and clears the disease rather than one that stays caged and stops. There is even a tell in who benefits most: the effect is largest in tumors whose biology builds up more mutations under chemotherapy, and more mutations mean more targets for a whole-tumor vaccine to find. The same logic explains what the vaccine is not, and what it does not need. Checkpoint inhibitors, the drugs that release the immune system's brakes, have failed on their own in glioblastoma because there was no active response to release; the vaccine supplies that response first. That makes the vaccine the natural foundation for combination therapy. Combining it with its poly-ICLC adjuvant, made by Oncovir, has already shown meaningful survival gains in a published analysis. In the pivotal trial, the vaccine's proven benefit came added on top of standard chemotherapy and radiation; the newer question is how much the immune response can carry on its own. A UCLA trial is now testing that in patients whose tumors have returned, adding #Keytruda (pembrolizumab), the checkpoint antibody from $MRK, in a regimen built entirely around the immune response with no chemotherapy or radiation in it at all. Its interim survival curve shows the shape the biology predicts. In the arm given the vaccine and Keytruda together after surgery, the curve does not fall away but flattens into a plateau, with roughly 65% of patients still alive well past the point where recurrent glioblastoma kills nearly everyone. That plateau is the signature of a response that took hold and lasted, the type 1 attack forming durable immune memory so that once the disease is controlled it stays controlled. That is where this points, and where it is already arriving, a treatment that works through the response itself, one that could in time lean less on the harsh radiation and chemotherapy that have defined glioblastoma care and barely moved its survival. These are interim results, from Prins, Cloughesy, and Liau at UCLA. 🔍 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗧𝗪𝗢: 𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟? The trial was randomized, an independent experiment shows the outside comparison is trustworthy, and every separate check points the same way. 🤔 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 So much for what happened; the harder question is whether to believe it. The trial has the feature critics attacked: it could not keep a normal placebo group, because patients assigned to placebo were allowed, by design and by medical ethics, to switch to the vaccine once their cancer returned, and almost all did. That erased the internal comparison, so survival was measured against closely matched patients from other completed trials, an approach called an external control, which critics argued could tilt toward the vaccine. What the objection misses is where the randomization went. This was a randomized, blinded trial. The patients who got the vaccine were assigned to it at random, not hand-picked, so the treated group is an ordinary slice of the trial population, not a favorable one. The crossover removed the placebo group but never touched how patients were assigned. That leaves exactly one place for bias to enter, the outside comparison group, which is precisely what the next checks test. ✅ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵𝘆 Before trusting a scale to weigh something unknown, you confirm it reads zero with nothing on it. That is what the calibration does, and it is the strongest part of the case. A separate, independent randomized trial called INSIGhT was run through the very same external-control method, and it gave two answers. First, three experimental drugs that had already failed were run through it, and it correctly found nothing (hazard ratios of 1.00, 0.93, and 0.88): the method does not manufacture a benefit where none exists. Second, INSIGhT's external controls were set head to head against its own randomized internal controls, and they were statistically indistinguishable. In this disease, an external control reproduces the answer a real randomized control would have given, and because that trial belonged to a different group, no one can say a sponsor graded its own work. The one place bias could enter, the control side, is the one place an independent randomized experiment certified as clean. There is a deeper fit worth naming, and it is what makes the two halves of this case one. The same instrument that reported those three failures as failures reads the vaccine as a success, and the biology says why: those drugs could not hold a tumor this varied, and the vaccine builds the broad, lasting response that finally does. One method, opposite readings, and one mechanism behind both. The statistics and the biology are not two arguments. They are the same argument seen twice. 🃏 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲'𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗿? A natural worry is that the outside comparison was arranged after the fact to flatter the vaccine. The trial was built to prevent that. The patients to compare against, and the rules for matching them, were fixed in writing before anyone saw results, and an independent firm, not the company, chose the comparison trials against those rules. The trial also switched its main measure partway through, from delaying tumor growth to overall survival, but that was not a maneuver: immune treatments cause a harmless swelling that mimics tumor growth on scans and made the growth measure unreliable, and the switch was made while everyone was still blinded. Three further checks point the same way. Survival in this disease has not improved over the years the comparison spans, so same-era controls are sound. When the borrowed controls were tested directly, the comparison came out conservative rather than flattering. And the controls were counted from the same point in the disease as the vaccine patients, so neither side got a head start. Where the comparison can err, it errs against the drug. 🔬 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 The first comparison used whole groups. A sharper one became possible once patient-level records from three other trials could be obtained, pairing each vaccine patient with controls matched on the traits that drive survival in glioblastoma, above all MGMT methylation status, matched exactly, plus age, sex, extent of surgery, residual disease, and performance status. When the comparison got sharper, the benefit grew in every one of these analyses. The original cohort-level estimate was 2.8 months. Patient-level matching across the three trials put the gain between 3.4 and 6.3 months, and a method that weights patients rather than pairing them put it between 3.4 and 4.3, with several of the matched comparisons roughly doubling the original figure. The hazard ratio moved the same way, from 0.80 to between 0.69 and 0.77. The direction matters. A real effect blurred by crude matching gets clearer when the matching improves, while a biased one tends to shrink. It got stronger. 🕵️ 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 A fair question is how much hidden bias it would take to erase the result. Statisticians measure that with the E-value, and here a hidden factor would have to be about as strong as age is on survival, would also have to drive who received the vaccine, and would have to have escaped the decades of research that mapped every known risk factor in this disease. A second, independent check, Rosenbaum's Gamma, comes at it from the other side, asking how large an unseen imbalance between matched patients it would take to break the result, and it reaches the same verdict. Every factor strong enough to matter was already matched. A hidden one that clears that bar is not plausible. 🔒 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲 The strongest point is not any single result. It is that a hidden bias big enough to explain the effect away would have to produce the same answer in every independent test at once: • The independent randomized calibration trial. • Three separate comparison trials, drawn from different studies. • Two different statistical methods that handle the data in different ways. • A separate pooled analysis of other dendritic-cell vaccine trials. • The internal math of the survival curve, which points to the same result (about 0.71 at five years) that the patient matching found. And it would have to fall in the exact direction the biology predicted before any data existed: a slow, widening benefit concentrated in long-term survivors. A single hidden factor that could forge all of that at once is not a hidden factor. It is a coincidence that does not happen. 🩺 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗥𝗘𝗘: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗧 𝗠𝗘𝗔𝗡𝗦 The drug is nearly free of harm, the evidence fits an established and approved regulatory path, and what remains unrun changes nothing about the case. 🛡️ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆 Two things decide whether a real effect reaches patients: whether the drug is safe enough to use, and whether regulators will accept the evidence. The first is settled. Across 2,151 doses, only five serious side effects were even possibly related to the vaccine, with no autoimmunity and no cytokine storm. It is made once, in about eight days, then stored and given as a simple injection. When a treatment barely harms, the benefit needed to justify it falls, and the benefit here clears that lower bar easily. ⏳ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘄 A reasonable person asks why the sharper analysis appeared in 2026 and not in 2023. The answer is access, not choice. The patient-level analysis was written into the trial's plan from the start, to run if and when the data could be obtained. The company tried and could not get it in 2023, because the trials that held it had not released it; it became available later through a data-sharing repository, on the data owners' timeline, not the company's. The stronger analysis was always the plan. It was waiting on data that other parties control. 🔄 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 The vaccine helped not only newly diagnosed patients but also those whose tumor had already come back, and there the effect was the largest seen anywhere in the trial. In that group, median survival ran 13.2 months from recurrence against 7.8 for the controls. The separation opened immediately, with 90.6% of vaccine patients alive at six months against 64.0% of controls, and the lead held to the later marks, where survival more than doubled: 20.7% against 9.6% at two years, 11.1% against 5.1% at two and a half. These are the original cohort-level results, already published. The high-resolution patient-level matching that was applied to the newly diagnosed group has not yet been done here, for a practical reason: it needs patient records from other recurrent-cancer trials, held by a European research organization that shares them through its own formal request. Obtaining them is a routine next step, not an obstacle, and the newly diagnosed experience suggests the sharper analysis would only make the recurrent result stronger. The approval case rests on the newly diagnosed evidence, so nothing important depends on this step; it would simply sharpen a result that is already the strongest in the trial. 🏛️ 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 Regulators do not treat an external control as a first choice, but the MHRA's guideline allows it in exactly this situation: a severe disease where a placebo trial is not ethical or feasible, and an effect large enough to interpret despite the design. The guideline even gives its own worked example of an acceptable external control, and it reads almost like a description of this trial: a rare disease, no ethical placebo, same-era standard-of-care controls, an objective survival endpoint, and an effect too large to blame on bias. DCVax-L fits on every count, and it was the first medicine ever to receive the MHRA's Promising Innovative Medicine designation, which asks essentially the same questions. The newly diagnosed case carries the decision on its own evidence, and regulators weigh that evidence against the disease it treats: in a cancer this lethal, with nothing better on offer, the question is whether the benefit is large, clear, and consistent enough to act on, and a benefit of this size, pointing the same way from every direction, is. 📜 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 External controls are not a novelty invented for this drug. Over the past two decades they have factored into roughly forty-five drug approvals by the United States regulator, each granted under the conditions that apply here: a serious or rare disease, a placebo that would be unethical, and high unmet need. Regulators do not grant this lightly. They grant it when the disease is serious, its course is predictable and objectively measured, and the effect is large. Glioblastoma meets all three. The named cases cover every part of this disease's profile. Defibrotide, for a life-threatening transplant complication, was approved on a propensity-score comparison to a historical control, the same kind of method used here. Blinatumomab, for an aggressive relapsed leukemia, is the precedent for a fast-killing cancer, cleared by both the United States and European regulators. Cerliponase alfa is the precedent for a fatal brain disease, cleared by both agencies on treated patients versus a matched natural-history group. Glioblastoma is both at once, a fast-killing cancer of the brain, read by the same method, so no part of its profile lacks a close approved precedent. And on the one axis that governs how far an external-control result can be trusted, DCVax-L goes beyond all three. Each of those drugs was tested in a single-arm trial, with no randomization at all. DCVax-L began as a randomized trial and became an external-control comparison only when ethics consumed its placebo group. It sits in that tradition, and at the top of it. 🎯 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 This began as a randomized trial. Medical ethics forced it into an external-control comparison. Every independent way of checking it, on different data and different math, points the same direction, and the biology predicted that direction in advance. The first analysis did not overstate the vaccine's effect. Read with the right tools, it understated it.
6:16

$NWBO #𝗗𝗖𝗩𝗮𝘅-𝗟: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗺𝘀 A short, plain-language reading of the survival evidence for DCVax-L in #glioblastoma, and what it means under the MHRAgovuk guideline on external control arms. 📊 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗢𝗡𝗘: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗙𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗗, 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗜𝗧 𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗦 DCVax-L more than doubled five-year survival, and the benefit is durability: a subset gets lasting disease control and simply stays alive. 💉 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴 𝗶𝘀 DCVax-L is a personalized cancer vaccine for glioblastoma, the deadliest form of brain cancer and a designated orphan disease. It is a living drug: its active ingredient is the patient's own immune cells, primed with proteins from that patient's surgically removed tumor, so the immune system learns to attack the cancer. Unlike a chemical drug that is metabolized and cleared, it switches on a living immune response that keeps working long after the injection. Glioblastoma comes back in almost everyone: even with the full standard of surgery, radiation, and temozolomide chemotherapy, most patients live under two years, and only about one in twenty reaches five. DCVax-L is given on top of that standard care, not in place of it: every patient in the trial received surgery, radiation, and temozolomide, and the vaccine was added to it, so the comparison measures what the vaccine adds. For two decades, nearly every new drug tried in this disease has failed. That is the backdrop against which any positive result must be judged. 📈 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 In a Phase 3 trial of 331 patients, those who received DCVax-L lived longer. At the median the gain looks modest, about three months (19.3 versus 16.5). The number that matters sits at the far end of the survival curve: more than twice as many vaccine patients were alive at five years, 13.0% versus 5.7%, and a few reached ten years in a disease that usually kills within three. In patients whose tumor had already returned, the effect was larger still, cutting the risk of death by about 42%. 👥 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 The benefit was not confined to the easy cases. Of the six prespecified subgroups the trial examined, every single one favored DCVax-L, and there was no group in which it did worse than standard care. The largest gains came in patients whose tumors carry MGMT methylation, who reached a median survival of 30.2 months from randomization against 21.3 for the controls. But even the hardest-to-treat patients, whose tumors lack that methylation, resist standard chemotherapy, and carry the worst prognosis in this disease, still came out ahead with the vaccine, at a hazard ratio of 0.93. A treatment that helps across the whole population, and helps most where the biology is most favorable, is acting like a real drug. 📉 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 That five-year number is the whole story, and the median buries it. Almost every treatment that ever helped in glioblastoma did the same modest thing: it slid the survival curve a few months to the right, then let it fall back. Doubling five-year survival is different in kind. A three-month gain at the median cannot, by itself, double the fraction alive at five years. The only shape that produces both numbers is a split: most patients get the small delay the median measures, while a subset gets durable disease control that lasts for years, well past where glioblastoma should have ended them. That subset is the long tail of the curve, and it is where the benefit lives. A median ignores extremes, the way a town's median income tells you nothing about its millionaires. The real story is not a longer delay; it is that a meaningful share of patients simply stay alive. 🧬 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲 The tail is not luck. It is what this biology is built to produce. The vaccine carries proteins from the patient's own tumor, so it aims the immune system at whatever that tumor is made of, not a fixed short list of targets. And it amplifies: one trained immune cell drives many others that multiply into cancer-killers. Andres Salazar, the neurologist who developed poly-ICLC into the clinical adjuvant given with the vaccine, puts it in a line: you start the fire, and you keep it burning. A response like that does not produce a one-time bump. It builds and widens over time. What matters is not just that a response forms, but what kind. Dendritic cells are the immune system's master switch for that, the cells that set what kind of attack the body mounts, and this vaccine is built from them. It drives what immunologists call a type 1 polarized response: an interferon-driven, cytotoxic program aimed squarely at the tumor. That direction comes from the vaccine itself; the poly-ICLC adjuvant given with it drives the same interferon program and sustains it. That is the active ingredient, and it has been measured. In UCLA studies of this approach, the patients whose immune systems mounted the strongest interferon response lived the longest. The response also spreads. In a different cancer, a vaccine carried on this same poly-ICLC adjuvant drove more than 70% of a patient's cancer-killing T cells to target proteins that were never in the vaccine: the immune system outgrew its original targets and went after the rest of the tumor on its own. This is called epitope spreading, and it is not particular to one tumor; it is what this kind of response does, and it is the kind of response DCVax-L builds. That breadth is the likeliest thing separating the long-term survivors from everyone else, a response that breaks past its targets and clears the disease rather than one that stays caged and stops. There is even a tell in who benefits most: the effect is largest in tumors whose biology builds up more mutations under chemotherapy, and more mutations mean more targets for a whole-tumor vaccine to find. The same logic explains what the vaccine is not, and what it does not need. Checkpoint inhibitors, the drugs that release the immune system's brakes, have failed on their own in glioblastoma because there was no active response to release; the vaccine supplies that response first. That makes the vaccine the natural foundation for combination therapy. Combining it with its poly-ICLC adjuvant, made by Oncovir, has already shown meaningful survival gains in a published analysis. In the pivotal trial, the vaccine's proven benefit came added on top of standard chemotherapy and radiation; the newer question is how much the immune response can carry on its own. A UCLA trial is now testing that in patients whose tumors have returned, adding #Keytruda (pembrolizumab), the checkpoint antibody from $MRK, in a regimen built entirely around the immune response with no chemotherapy or radiation in it at all. Its interim survival curve shows the shape the biology predicts. In the arm given the vaccine and Keytruda together after surgery, the curve does not fall away but flattens into a plateau, with roughly 65% of patients still alive well past the point where recurrent glioblastoma kills nearly everyone. That plateau is the signature of a response that took hold and lasted, the type 1 attack forming durable immune memory so that once the disease is controlled it stays controlled. That is where this points, and where it is already arriving, a treatment that works through the response itself, one that could in time lean less on the harsh radiation and chemotherapy that have defined glioblastoma care and barely moved its survival. These are interim results, from Prins, Cloughesy, and Liau at UCLA. 🔍 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗧𝗪𝗢: 𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟? The trial was randomized, an independent experiment shows the outside comparison is trustworthy, and every separate check points the same way. 🤔 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 So much for what happened; the harder question is whether to believe it. The trial has the feature critics attacked: it could not keep a normal placebo group, because patients assigned to placebo were allowed, by design and by medical ethics, to switch to the vaccine once their cancer returned, and almost all did. That erased the internal comparison, so survival was measured against closely matched patients from other completed trials, an approach called an external control, which critics argued could tilt toward the vaccine. What the objection misses is where the randomization went. This was a randomized, blinded trial. The patients who got the vaccine were assigned to it at random, not hand-picked, so the treated group is an ordinary slice of the trial population, not a favorable one. The crossover removed the placebo group but never touched how patients were assigned. That leaves exactly one place for bias to enter, the outside comparison group, which is precisely what the next checks test. ✅ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵𝘆 Before trusting a scale to weigh something unknown, you confirm it reads zero with nothing on it. That is what the calibration does, and it is the strongest part of the case. A separate, independent randomized trial called INSIGhT was run through the very same external-control method, and it gave two answers. First, three experimental drugs that had already failed were run through it, and it correctly found nothing (hazard ratios of 1.00, 0.93, and 0.88): the method does not manufacture a benefit where none exists. Second, INSIGhT's external controls were set head to head against its own randomized internal controls, and they were statistically indistinguishable. In this disease, an external control reproduces the answer a real randomized control would have given, and because that trial belonged to a different group, no one can say a sponsor graded its own work. The one place bias could enter, the control side, is the one place an independent randomized experiment certified as clean. There is a deeper fit worth naming, and it is what makes the two halves of this case one. The same instrument that reported those three failures as failures reads the vaccine as a success, and the biology says why: those drugs could not hold a tumor this varied, and the vaccine builds the broad, lasting response that finally does. One method, opposite readings, and one mechanism behind both. The statistics and the biology are not two arguments. They are the same argument seen twice. 🃏 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲'𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗿? A natural worry is that the outside comparison was arranged after the fact to flatter the vaccine. The trial was built to prevent that. The patients to compare against, and the rules for matching them, were fixed in writing before anyone saw results, and an independent firm, not the company, chose the comparison trials against those rules. The trial also switched its main measure partway through, from delaying tumor growth to overall survival, but that was not a maneuver: immune treatments cause a harmless swelling that mimics tumor growth on scans and made the growth measure unreliable, and the switch was made while everyone was still blinded. Three further checks point the same way. Survival in this disease has not improved over the years the comparison spans, so same-era controls are sound. When the borrowed controls were tested directly, the comparison came out conservative rather than flattering. And the controls were counted from the same point in the disease as the vaccine patients, so neither side got a head start. Where the comparison can err, it errs against the drug. 🔬 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 The first comparison used whole groups. A sharper one became possible once patient-level records from three other trials could be obtained, pairing each vaccine patient with controls matched on the traits that drive survival in glioblastoma, above all MGMT methylation status, matched exactly, plus age, sex, extent of surgery, residual disease, and performance status. When the comparison got sharper, the benefit grew in every one of these analyses. The original cohort-level estimate was 2.8 months. Patient-level matching across the three trials put the gain between 3.4 and 6.3 months, and a method that weights patients rather than pairing them put it between 3.4 and 4.3, with several of the matched comparisons roughly doubling the original figure. The hazard ratio moved the same way, from 0.80 to between 0.69 and 0.77. The direction matters. A real effect blurred by crude matching gets clearer when the matching improves, while a biased one tends to shrink. It got stronger. 🕵️ 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 A fair question is how much hidden bias it would take to erase the result. Statisticians measure that with the E-value, and here a hidden factor would have to be about as strong as age is on survival, would also have to drive who received the vaccine, and would have to have escaped the decades of research that mapped every known risk factor in this disease. A second, independent check, Rosenbaum's Gamma, comes at it from the other side, asking how large an unseen imbalance between matched patients it would take to break the result, and it reaches the same verdict. Every factor strong enough to matter was already matched. A hidden one that clears that bar is not plausible. 🔒 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲 The strongest point is not any single result. It is that a hidden bias big enough to explain the effect away would have to produce the same answer in every independent test at once: • The independent randomized calibration trial. • Three separate comparison trials, drawn from different studies. • Two different statistical methods that handle the data in different ways. • A separate pooled analysis of other dendritic-cell vaccine trials. • The internal math of the survival curve, which points to the same result (about 0.71 at five years) that the patient matching found. And it would have to fall in the exact direction the biology predicted before any data existed: a slow, widening benefit concentrated in long-term survivors. A single hidden factor that could forge all of that at once is not a hidden factor. It is a coincidence that does not happen. 🩺 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗥𝗘𝗘: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗧 𝗠𝗘𝗔𝗡𝗦 The drug is nearly free of harm, the evidence fits an established and approved regulatory path, and what remains unrun changes nothing about the case. 🛡️ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆 Two things decide whether a real effect reaches patients: whether the drug is safe enough to use, and whether regulators will accept the evidence. The first is settled. Across 2,151 doses, only five serious side effects were even possibly related to the vaccine, with no autoimmunity and no cytokine storm. It is made once, in about eight days, then stored and given as a simple injection. When a treatment barely harms, the benefit needed to justify it falls, and the benefit here clears that lower bar easily. ⏳ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘄 A reasonable person asks why the sharper analysis appeared in 2026 and not in 2023. The answer is access, not choice. The patient-level analysis was written into the trial's plan from the start, to run if and when the data could be obtained. The company tried and could not get it in 2023, because the trials that held it had not released it; it became available later through a data-sharing repository, on the data owners' timeline, not the company's. The stronger analysis was always the plan. It was waiting on data that other parties control. 🔄 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 The vaccine helped not only newly diagnosed patients but also those whose tumor had already come back, and there the effect was the largest seen anywhere in the trial. In that group, median survival ran 13.2 months from recurrence against 7.8 for the controls. The separation opened immediately, with 90.6% of vaccine patients alive at six months against 64.0% of controls, and the lead held to the later marks, where survival more than doubled: 20.7% against 9.6% at two years, 11.1% against 5.1% at two and a half. These are the original cohort-level results, already published. The high-resolution patient-level matching that was applied to the newly diagnosed group has not yet been done here, for a practical reason: it needs patient records from other recurrent-cancer trials, held by a European research organization that shares them through its own formal request. Obtaining them is a routine next step, not an obstacle, and the newly diagnosed experience suggests the sharper analysis would only make the recurrent result stronger. The approval case rests on the newly diagnosed evidence, so nothing important depends on this step; it would simply sharpen a result that is already the strongest in the trial. 🏛️ 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 Regulators do not treat an external control as a first choice, but the MHRA's guideline allows it in exactly this situation: a severe disease where a placebo trial is not ethical or feasible, and an effect large enough to interpret despite the design. The guideline even gives its own worked example of an acceptable external control, and it reads almost like a description of this trial: a rare disease, no ethical placebo, same-era standard-of-care controls, an objective survival endpoint, and an effect too large to blame on bias. DCVax-L fits on every count, and it was the first medicine ever to receive the MHRA's Promising Innovative Medicine designation, which asks essentially the same questions. The newly diagnosed case carries the decision on its own evidence, and regulators weigh that evidence against the disease it treats: in a cancer this lethal, with nothing better on offer, the question is whether the benefit is large, clear, and consistent enough to act on, and a benefit of this size, pointing the same way from every direction, is. 📜 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 External controls are not a novelty invented for this drug. Over the past two decades they have factored into roughly forty-five drug approvals by the United States regulator, each granted under the conditions that apply here: a serious or rare disease, a placebo that would be unethical, and high unmet need. Regulators do not grant this lightly. They grant it when the disease is serious, its course is predictable and objectively measured, and the effect is large. Glioblastoma meets all three. The named cases cover every part of this disease's profile. Defibrotide, for a life-threatening transplant complication, was approved on a propensity-score comparison to a historical control, the same kind of method used here. Blinatumomab, for an aggressive relapsed leukemia, is the precedent for a fast-killing cancer, cleared by both the United States and European regulators. Cerliponase alfa is the precedent for a fatal brain disease, cleared by both agencies on treated patients versus a matched natural-history group. Glioblastoma is both at once, a fast-killing cancer of the brain, read by the same method, so no part of its profile lacks a close approved precedent. And on the one axis that governs how far an external-control result can be trusted, DCVax-L goes beyond all three. Each of those drugs was tested in a single-arm trial, with no randomization at all. DCVax-L began as a randomized trial and became an external-control comparison only when ethics consumed its placebo group. It sits in that tradition, and at the top of it. 🎯 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 This began as a randomized trial. Medical ethics forced it into an external-control comparison. Every independent way of checking it, on different data and different math, points the same direction, and the biology predicted that direction in advance. The first analysis did not overstate the vaccine's effect. Read with the right tools, it understated it.

Andrew Caravello, DO

11,406 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад