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: Webhead who wrote (1606)	10/28/1998 3:50:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1762

Thank you Webhead. That makes sense, but the non-specific damage you mention from wafting Yttrium should be quite minor compared with the cancer risk they suffer from unsuccessfully killed tumor cells. Don't you think that the CD20 antigens in the tumor, [which is apparently where the real problem lies rather than the freely circulating cells which are apparently relatively easily killed], should be reserved exclusively for the Yttrium conjugated Rituxan monoclonal antibody? They are talking about a mere 29% complete response with the current protocol. Also, since cold Rituxan is apparently ineffectual against intermediate grade B-cells, even if they are strongly CD20 positive, it seems that the free-floating cells will be insulated by the cold Rituxan which will block all the CD20 antigens so that the Yttrium labelled Rituxan won't be able to get a grip on them. They'll simply float around, happily protected by the Rituxan, then go on to reproduce and kill the person. The issue seems to be one of how much collateral damage is tolerable. With only 29% complete response, it seems that a lot more collateral damage could be accepted if it raised that 29% to 60%, or 80%. Or more if given to newly diagnosed people. Regards, Maurice