Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotransplant(BTRN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Russian Bear who wrote (316)	7/13/1999 4:00:00 PM
From: Russian Bear	Respond to of 1475

Never mind the last post. I just went back and checked a few of the preceding posts. I obviously don't understand something important. I will go back and try to get my bearings before jumping in again. Sorry. RB

To: Russian Bear who wrote (316)	7/13/1999 4:09:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1475

RB: Correct. I commented that anti-host T cells would be expected to continue to derive from the donor stem cells, beyond the treatment phase of the study. That is, that the attack against host would be renewed. OTOH, the frequency of complete response is seemingly high. A good friend noted that earlier results with 322 were skewed if liver GvH was not included, which reminds that "GvH" is a simple description of a spectrum of presentations. The only conclusion that I am left with is that the release was poorly written. That always scares me, because the alternative is that lack of clarity results from intention. That, however, makes me respect the companies for guarding info that might be of value to competitors. So it's a big circle. Translation..... I don't understand the protocol. I don't understand why the patients were not dosed further into the protocol. I guess it could be for clarity in assessing anti-MAb responses. If you're a clinical investigator, the issues at this early stage don't start with efficacy. Further translation..... I am as confused as anyone. But the take-home appears to be that the MAb led to resolution of disease in a good percentage of patients and did not induce significant antibody responses. Are you worried about the reference to infections? If so.... small sample, and a terrible disease. When I was a grad student, I did medical courses for the first year. Was considering getting an M.D. too, when I attended a seminar by Bob Gale. GvH photos made me sick to my stomach, and I decided to stand pat. It's a man-made disease. Why do we need a cure for a man-made disease?....... the potential for stem cell substitution. Which brings us to BTRN instead of MEDI. Sorry, I don't know. Frustrating. I'll try to get a copy of the presentation graphics. Rick