Re: The Junk Science That Won't Die...Marie Huber and her Merry Band of Idiots...
I should go verify all the above with appeal to the original sources but just from what you have stated, the issue is not about hypothetical MOA but rather the whole collection of evidence. "If the MOA does not fit you must not quit."
Essentially everyone is ignoring the other's comments by replying to a different argument. Sure, the subgroups between provenge and placebo differ in overall survival but why? Is the placebo deleterious? The Harvard paper just appeals to the median of historical control group surival which is of no consequence for this arugment as I had been saying since late 2006 or maybe 2007.
A questionable placebo combined with MOA data presented to gloss over important details along with general attitude of trying to confuse drug and prognostic effects makes the situation very debatable.
This could have all been addressed in 2007 as DNDN had been making heavy use of prognostic factors and could have just dumped everything showing IMPROVED survival not just "overall." By choosing not to do anything like this or better, you have to wonder why. This present critique is one possible reason.