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: scaram(o)uche who wrote (2267)	8/25/2013 12:31:53 PM
From: hirogen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2344

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. Rick, your post got forwarded to IV. I believe you are inferring from the 2nd cycle data in the paper the effect on Tregs and Stim effectivness. However I think it's overinterpreting that data by applying it to the effect of the hold and the shape of the cCRT vs sCRT curves. There is only the lead-in dosing of cyclophosphamide in START after which it is no longer given. The hold had no effect on subsequently denying it to the treatment arm. Even so it doesn't explain the convergence of the curves in cCRT to a degree that is not apparent in the mITT, sCRT, or any other sub-groups.