Sorry for being an "Oncolytics' freak". I prefer to think of myself as an excited shareholder, but to each his own.
I wasn't aware that the indications thread was used as a file folder and that discussion was discouraged. Perhaps the thread header should be expanded to say something to that effect.
Despite you thinking I'm a freak and me thinking you're a pompous a$$, perhaps we can have a civil discussion on this thread. It appears that it is OK to have a discussion here? (Also, I attempted to answer your two earlier questions over on the Oncolytics thread: siliconinvestor.com
You were wondering 'how an immunogenic virus can be effective upon repeat administration and at distant sites to administration'.
In a similar fashion to WUWT's comments, I'm not an expert and must rely on things that I've read or heard for scientific background, but here is a snippet from an audio interview with Dr. Brad Thompson (ONC CEO) that appears to discuss the issue:
Dr. Brad Thompson (when asked about high animal immune response):
"We were more concerned earlier about the immune response and the
ability of the virus to be delivered systemically and to spread
from tumour to tumour. What we've found was - and this goes in
conjunction with some of our human data as well - is that there
is an immune response to the virus when you give it for the first
time, and what we've found, normally, is that the first time - it
doesn't matter what kind of cancer - the first time you treat a
cancer, the immune response isn't enough to cause a problem. For
first time use on reovirus there really isn't an immune issue at
all. We were then concerned about what happens if there is a
relapse and you want to reuse the product and what we've found
is that the immune response for most - probably in the high 90s
of percentages - of, certainly the patients that we are seeing,
and on the animal models, that the immune response isn't strong
enough to prohibit second use of the virus or spread of the virus.
There is a small percentage, however, where the immune response to
the virus could possibly and in some cases does inhibit its
effectiveness, so what we've done is shown is that just very short
term - I mean pulse immune suppression with any of the common immune
suppressants that are out - as a co-therapy takes that kind of edge
off of the immune system and allows the virus to do its job. So I
think we've pretty much answered the question about how the immune
system has to be dealt with, and we've come up with strategies in
those very few cases where it's important, we can deal with it."
Cheers,
P.D.T.
PS. Would a 45 patient phase II prostate trial at three or more clinical sites across Canada count as a large, multi-center trial? |
