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 : Provectus Pharmaceuticals Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NTTG who wrote (12252)	7/19/2013 4:57:53 PM
From: Mimbari	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13111

LMAO. NTTG you have become quite the celebrity in the oncology and lab circles. We all bet on what stupid thing your going to say next. "It needs to be peer reviewed" ok done...."damn, ok now it has to be in a journal of my choosing"...lol

To: NTTG who wrote (12252)	7/21/2013 5:40:54 PM
From: mplaut	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13111

I think that your "small bits" may still be too large for me. But as far as I can tell, figures 3 show that the overall effect in the body is from PV-10 and not from the saline solution. See 3A and 3B and the dramatic difference evident in 3C. It is hard for me to determine how figure 5 is different (because I do not fully understand what results it is showing) but it seems to me that the effect of the PBS is in some sort of laboratory setting and not in the mice bodies where very little PBS effect is observed as we saw in figures 3. The results of figure 5 are of the effects of T cells. We are looking at "the mean ± SE of triplicates from a chromium release assay" and not how PV-10 or saline solution works in a body like in figures 3. If a salt solution could really do so well if injected IL then Moffitt would look at that. To me it seems that your claim that the results show that 50% of the biologic effect of PV-10 is from the saline solution in which it is embedded seems based on a confusion between the results shown in figures 3 and the results in figures 5. Here is the relevant part of the discussion accompanying figures 3: "All mice that received PBS treatments displayed growth of tumor in the flank and had more than 250 lung lesions. In contrast, mice that received IL PV-10 demonstrated fewer lung lesions ( Figure 3A, p<0.01 compared to PBS-treated mice) and had significantly smaller subcutaneous tumors ( Figure 3B, p<0.05 compared to mice treated with IL PBS). Representative lungs are shown in Figure 3C." Either you or I have grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted the report. It may well be me since I am definitely not an expert in this field. If it was me, I hope that you will explain why so that I can learn something. If it was you, then I leave it to you to determine the appropriate response.