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

To: geneguru who wrote (2167)	5/21/2013 11:51:22 AM
From: bmaz001	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2344

No doubt that the results are impressive. However, if Merck is convinced that the FDA is as 'rigid' as a few of the posters on IV have suggested it could be a very long wait.

To: geneguru who wrote (2167)	5/21/2013 1:47:37 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2344

Steve, it's going to be tough to get a standing-room-only space at Butts' presentation. Not one immunologist wants another provenge, where a minor benefit can't be backed by lab evidence that patients ever "saw" antigen. If he walks in with immune correlates (again, can't wait to see the results of the "correlates" trial which matures in June) and long-term survivor data that favors L-BLP25, then we're gold. A next step would be to look at frequencies of CD4+PD-1+, CD4+CTLA4+, CD8+ and CD25+ T cell populations in vaccine recipients, before and after immunization, with an eye to pairing the vaccine with immune checkpoint inhibition. This is either going to be monstrous, or it's going to look like pfffffbbbbbbt-face-plant "adjuvant effect". If it looks like the latter, everyone will see burn and future, marginal trials. I'm quite pleased with the abstract, and feel good about rolling dice. Thanks for your comments and thoughts. Good luck! Rick