Steve, could you please point Hirogen at I.V. to this manuscript, which I've mentioned recently? Thanks, in advance.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
This is the latest publication re. blp25 that has a coauthor from Merck. It says that cyclophosphamide priming is necessary, mouse model, to maintain vaccine efficacy.
That is, Dr. Wurz et al. might have predicted the shift in shape of the cCRT curve relative to sCRT..... that immunization later in the experiment, when Tregs have recovered after cyclophosphamide, would be ineffective.
That is, immunization late in the process, when you're far removed from cyclophosphamide, induces a Treg response to counter effector immunization.
If one assumes that "Red" is correct? The path is very clear and clean for smaller human experiments. If Merck has ANY human data to support Red's assertions, they'd be crazy to let go of this sucker. ANY immunologist worth his salt is drooling at the START results..... they are profound. Now, we just need to know why.
The results, cCRT versus sCRT cut, fit 30 years of observation in cancer immunology like a glove. As basic immunologists catch the results (most have not seen them, for sure), "Eureka!" moments will pop up with increasing frequency. |
