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 : momo-T/FIF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Dodgy Ticker who wrote (381)	5/17/2004 1:09:21 PM
From: keokalani'nui	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12215

I have a feeling, just a feeling mind you, that this is not going to work out.

To: The Dodgy Ticker who wrote (381)	5/17/2004 2:58:14 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12215

Terry's a passionate, well-meaning guy. >> Theory has to yield to data. << There, we're agreed. Otherwise...... Most lung cancers are certainly environmental, but they are not "induced". You don't smoke with the intent to give yourself a cancer. For the sake of Terry's subsequent research, he can use almost anything apart from stuff like cervical carcinoma, Burkitt's, etc. Telomerase is NOT a tumor-specific antigen. It is a self antigen that is induced in cancer cells, a "differentiation" antigen (at best). It certainly is expressed in some normal human tissues. Ditto MUC-1 and HER-2. Terry is wrong, he can NOT show us many individuals who have demonstrated the existence of tumor-specific antigens on spontaneous cancers. I can't find one who would be willing to stand up and say such -- at the 2004 AAI meeting -- to the faces of peers. Note.... if that statement isn't taken in the broadest of "cervical carcinoma, Burkitt's, etc." contexts, then any nitpicker can respond to it. It is very simple to do the definitive experiments, once you believe that you've got a tumor-specific antigen in-hand. Nobody -- NOBODY -- has demonstrated such to date, after 30 years of effort. There are several efforts, using vaccines derived from autologous cancer cells and including those of AGEN using two different "adjuvants" (loosely), which are the best shot yet at finding those antigens. I don't deny that they exist, but I take offense at the simplistic BS at the AGEN website. If Terry believes that my opinion/concern is worth what you pay for it, great. >> in the belief that they have something worthwhile to offer << Again, the concept is proven..... stress-induced chaperones can act as powerful adjuvants. I'm very pleased that AGEN is doing the experiments. If I were going to design a cancer vaccine trial such that it had a chance, it would be something very close to an AGEN design. >> I'll post any further comments along this line on the SI AGEN board. << No, please don't. I post to this thread, rather than company-specific threads, for a reason. I enjoy a place where company-passionate freaks don't find us. Terry and I have bumped heads before, under the most difficult of circumstances. We were being mislead by a management team, a team which had actually "edited" clinical data before it was submitted to FDA for review. We're not talking phase II or phase III, but an approved product, an anti-adhesive for back surgery. There was a company-sourced leak, and, as a result, we were bucking >>> From what I see, Bob, the data looks good. So what is Rick's problem? <<< short selling which was relentless and mystifying. Ironic. Given that you've opened this can of worms, I invite both Terry and any immunologist(s) from AGEN to come here to SI, to this thread. Without regard to AGEN projects, we can discuss the nature of "antigen" which is associated with various human malignancies. The world of cancer immunology would profit from a no-nonsense effort to discuss this issue, without the intervening bias or seeming validation of various journal editors (particularly those of "methods" journals). Otherwise, I won't discuss the issue further. I don't get them all correct, Bob. I'm just trying to help. I don't have enough time in life to cover all companies in depth, or to deal with company champions when I have little interest in a given investment. If threadsters cross-post our comments to a context of their choice, some of us will need to flat out exit from critical commentary. Companies monitor their relevant threads in public discussion forums. When a threadster takes the liberty of cross-posting, the privacy afforded to this forum goes poof. Once again, I'd love to be wrong. I'd love to see a decent fraction of AGEN's patients mount a vigorous and protective response to tumor antigens, "associated" or "specific". And I'd even take something else, something that I consider more likely and given Terry's "yield to data".... that the adjuvant itself provides modest protection, as a relatively non-toxic and non-specific agent. Best regards back at ya, Rick

To: The Dodgy Ticker who wrote (381)	5/17/2004 3:26:28 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 12215

A perspective that one can't have, unless you're a cellular immunologist with lots of bench time under belt, generating data...... a population of antigen-specific CTLs (cytotoxic T lymphocytes) is potent. They can eat their way through a steel wall. Most immunologists would predict that an effective vaccine, derived from autologous tumor cells, would elicit a strong and immediate response. We're not talking sissy cells here. We're talking T cells, the cells that keep us alive; we're walking culture plates without them. Have respect for the proposed mechanism when you look at cancer vaccine results, and...... if it doesn't look wowie! incredible, my best guess? It's not due to antigen-specific CTLs. That, to me, implies that stock price will rocket as effective trials are conducted and if any success is indeed the result of specific sensitization to cancer-specific antigens.