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 : Techniclone (TCLN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EZLibra who wrote (2726)	11/23/1998 10:01:00 PM
From: Gutterball	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3702

Thanks for the update. I don't know where I got the idea that Cappello did your last bit of financing. I now see it was Swartz. Anyway, the way it was written looked like it carried Cappello's signature. I wouldn't count myself out of the woods yet. I wish you all luck and hope you never have to draw on your line of credit.

To: EZLibra who wrote (2726)	11/25/1998 4:20:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3702

messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com Berblady said: "M. Winn on SI advocates using everything: start with CHOP, add Rituxan, Oncolym, Bexxar and wash down with some cod liver oil. The trouble with this idea - although it sounds as though no cancer cell would dare survive such an onslaught - is that each treatment has side effects. You start adding those up and you might wipe out the patient along with the cancer. Also they may be incompatible, etc. Lots of problems." That's a slight misrepresentation, though sort of right. Because Oncolym and Bexxar are apparently dose limited due to radiation damage to marrow causing myelosuppression, I'm not suggesting some random blasting using everything. One or other of those would need to be selected depending on the antigens the person was expressing. CHOP is dose limited by heart, nerve and other damage, but not related to vitamin D toxicity, so CHOP and cod liver oil would be independent. Surgery is not related to any of the other treatments so can be used in any event where the damage from surgery is less than the improvement due to tumor removal. Adriamycin and radiation can't be concurrent because they are antagonistic somehow [don't know how, but that's the case]. For I131, it is the total radiation dose which matters, whether it is from Bexxar, or Oncolym and you would need to include radiation from Yttrium in that sum too. So the balance for those radiation treatments would be dependent on the balance of antigens expressed. If heaps of CD20, you might go for Yttrium [IDEC's Y2B8] and forget about the Bexxar. But you might reduce the single dose Yttrium and replace it with some Oncolym. messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com Here, the suggestion is that slick, sleazy marketers can sell any old junk. While it is true that good marketers can sell a lot more than bad ones, there is a lot more to it than being a snake oil salesman. It is a matter of removing the buyer's ignorance and giving them confidence to buy and use the product. If the better product has a poor marketer, then the veil of ignorance is not removed and the better product will not be used. But part of a good product is good handling of customers - it only becomes a product when the buyer is happy and confident to buy it. Part of the product, as much as the clinical trials, is the communication with the prospective customers. To provide the real oil on STP and shear stability, some lubricants really are shear stable in engines. STP is almost certainly one of those. Which is not to say that it enhances the overall performance of your engine. If lubricants are too viscous, which adding viscosity index improvers will cause, you will get more drag in the engine, more fuel consumption, and possibly more engine wear because the oil will be too thick at low temperatures and won't flow quickly around the engine at start up. The best solution is to use the best quality engine oil and high quality fuel. Oil makers and engine manufacturers spend a lot of effort ensuring optimum performance. If you add other stuff without good reason, you will almost certainly reduce rather than enhance performance and reduce engine protection, while increasing your costs. They don't leave anything out of the more expensive engine oils to save money. If there was something else to put in it to give them a quality edge, they would put it in. The best quality synthetic oils, which cost plenty of money, are as good as you can get. In the same way, just bunging in any old thing to your body is not a good idea without very good reason. So I am certainly not advocating just sloshing in some Bexxar, a bit of Oncolym, don't forget Rituxan and Y2B8 and some external beam radiation as well. But just as the best engine oils include a lot of additives, which each perform different functions, the best Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma treatment seems to involve identifying various characteristics of NHL amenable to attack by toxicity or induced immune system reactions or even apoptosis. Maurice [ex oil industry specialist] Just happened to read TCLN Yahoo! and clicked back over a day or two! PS: The Conoco pipeline flow improver will have been a cheap long chain molecule which is okay in gentle pipeline flow, but as stated, gets smashed in pumps. STP [I suppose] includes an expensive flow improver which is shear stable even when hot and jammed between piston rings and bore. Just as synthetic oils have good low temperature and high temperature viscosity, even under shear. Just as some engine oil additives included as part of the engine oil have these good properties.