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 : IDPH--Positive preliminary results for pivotal trial of ID -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Perry who wrote (1545)	4/21/1998 9:01:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1762

James, IDEC seem to be doing well. Rituxan is real enough and has been used on thousands of patients. Results being gathered and analysed. Berblady [Yahoo] questioned the mass onslaught using all the armoury because her immune system was too damaged by treatment to continue. CHOP and many other treatments are limited by toxicity. For treatments which are NHL cell specific, collateral damage is less problematic. Rituxan wipes out all B-cells with CD20 so that gives temporary damage with risk of infection. So the heavily toxic or damaging ones, like CHOP and radiation could be limited. Whereas the less permanently harmful such as Rituxan and cod liver oil could be dosed up pretty heavily. Tarken was given only 3 doses of CHOP rather than 6 because of toxicity risk versus NHL risk. Same principle for multitreatment approaches. Say 2 lots of CHOP which really would give things a good start, but with lower toxicity. Then a full Rituxan dose. Then 30% of an Oncolym dose, 30% of Bexxar and 30% of Y2B8. Which would get the various CD20 and other hooks. The dendritic cell enhancements don't seem to be toxic, nor do the antiangiogenesis treatments. Or Tumor Necrosis Therapy [TNT]. That shouldn't do much damage to marrow and immune systems [or cause too much leukemia, thyroid cancer etc]. But NHLs would be looking sad. Just some ideas. Maurice [I don't know about Aurora sorry. And don't apologize for wanting to make a buck. I believe finding NHL cures and making a buck are compatible goals. If more people aimed towards making a buck instead of trying to operate by way of donations - such as the Malaghan Institute - there would be a lot more money available as the prospect of profit attracted huge flows of investment cash from other fields. Donations will always be spare change rather than massive retirement fund type investment. Foundations should be corporatized Intellectual Property Right organisations out to make a fortune. Then there would be some real public interest and a lot more money. With fast, competitive and effective cures being found. Don't donate money to foundations! Buy shares in companies which are finding cures.]