I am the first to offer anyone a hopeful message. Being pragmatic and realistic is not mutually exclusive with optimism. If you read my comments, I was very specific - these vaccines are offered to a small select group of people with specific expressed characteristics. Simply put, the studies are cherry picking the best candidates, then comparing them to the overall median survivability. I speak not from opinion, but from experiance.
As an example, one study picks from those people that have no less than a 100% gross total resection and have very high KPS scores. There have been a number of statistical studies that demonstrate a significant survivability improvement when the resection is 100% and when the measured deficit is small. So to me the question is simple - are the vaccine results based on 'real math' or 'false math' ?
I work with statistics each and every day. Without sounding like a pompous a** - I understand the math that is being used. I offer that everyone should try everything they can to fight GBM.... but we are not yet at a wonder drug or treatment. Beating GBM is a fight -
One last thought. Median surviviability is the half way point in a sample of survivability. Half the people live longer than the median. They people in the longer term survivor cohort are younger (<45 YO), have a greater % resection, have fewer deficits (KPS score) , are in better health, have little other medical isses, and have a positive outlook.