SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : GZMO -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jeffbas who wrote (135)10/19/1999 1:16:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche  Respond to of 438
 
Jeff:

Cancer immunology is a sink hole. It's an area of my expertise (if one can say that, given my time away from the bench, I actually still have one), and I don't invest much in the area. Nonetheless, there are marginal advances that are being made, and GZMO appears to be willing and able to advance some of them.

>> is there any place (or service) which would evaluate whether the GZMO approach to melanoma is more likely "better" than Therion? <<

The field is full of dogma and worse. I've never seen a reliable source of unbiased info. Sorry, no easy answer. However.... next breath..... the Science manuscript was knock-your-socks-off stuff, and angiogenesis is looking like a viable part of cocktail therapy, IMO.

There's just that tiny stickler re. anti-angiogenesis..... the lack of significant clinical data.



To: jeffbas who wrote (135)10/19/1999 1:34:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 438
 
If Rick says there is lack of significant clinical data in anti-angiogenesis, maybe there is a negative amount of data for these GT approaches. For the former, I have collected and reformatted some information here (Angiogenesis link):

freeyellow.com

Is the Science paper that took Rick's socks off the one on AT3 variants? Or something else. So many Science papers, so little time, so few socks ...

PB