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 (2219)	8/4/2013 5:16:02 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 2344

Hey, Steve. Yeah, saw the BVF disclosure. Also saw your note at I.V., thanks for supporting the share price when it was in doldrums! Hope you rake it in. Have my share on table. Best! Rick

To: geneguru who wrote (2219)	8/4/2013 7:50:08 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2344

>> Wonder what they found out? << Sabutoclax has cleared preclinical? ONT-10-attributed responses, Mary Crowley? A pharma is out shopping for TLR4 agonists? Part 2 of prostate (PX-866) study shows promise? or..... Merck has something to say on Tuesday, as widely rumored. ;-)

To: geneguru who wrote (2219)	8/6/2013 9:12:38 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 2344

As you know by now and from Merck... same old same old.... engaging with regulatory honchos "as we speak", decision 2H13.

To: geneguru who wrote (2219)	8/12/2013 9:14:12 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 2344

The attacks on Red contain some serious flaws in logic, a couple hilarious. OTOH, while I believe that the vaccine directly caused patient benefit, I'm not ready to assign such to "restricted" T cell (l-bpl25-induced) or monocyte/granulocyte activity. Hope that Merck has HUMAN data to back Red's strong belief. Still would love to hear about results from this trial, rectal....... clinicaltrials.gov No history of revision, and past the projected completion date. No warm/fuzzy to be had there. :-( But just think about how cool the results of that trial might look, as a slide at any future Advisory Committee meeting. :-) BTW... no justification for the flak you're taking, re. hopes for a Merck comment last week. Best! Rick

To: geneguru who wrote (2219)	8/22/2013 9:39:54 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2344

Do you note that the statisticians have stopped talking about 40 cuts through the data (given that there were four) and are now concerned with the subset HRs, which are just fine? Noticed that statisticians ALWAYS tell you what FDA and other regulatory agencies want/need, regardless that they work in aeronautics, trash collection, or peanut picking? Noticed that statisticians don't have a clue about immune responses, and want tight standard deviations from a vaccine as one often sees with a small molecule? They'll drool all over a few months from ipi, but a "sore thumb" vaccine result just can't be real?? (Guess they didn't/don't own INCY, Steve.) Best! Rick

To: geneguru who wrote (2219)	8/24/2013 1:44:43 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2344

Steve, could you please point Hirogen at I.V. to this manuscript, which I've mentioned recently? Thanks, in advance. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov This is the latest publication re. blp25 that has a coauthor from Merck. It says that cyclophosphamide priming is necessary, mouse model, to maintain vaccine efficacy. That is, Dr. Wurz et al. might have predicted the shift in shape of the cCRT curve relative to sCRT..... that immunization later in the experiment, when Tregs have recovered after cyclophosphamide, would be ineffective. That is, immunization late in the process, when you're far removed from cyclophosphamide, induces a Treg response to counter effector immunization. If one assumes that "Red" is correct? The path is very clear and clean for smaller human experiments. If Merck has ANY human data to support Red's assertions, they'd be crazy to let go of this sucker. ANY immunologist worth his salt is drooling at the START results..... they are profound. Now, we just need to know why. The results, cCRT versus sCRT cut, fit 30 years of observation in cancer immunology like a glove. As basic immunologists catch the results (most have not seen them, for sure), "Eureka!" moments will pop up with increasing frequency.