Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Probably there are enough studies running here already, crowded
Wow... they ran another study somewhere using a placebo ? News to me.
You can 'see things' in statistics, like if you do just a big SOC and divide it in half one half will come out better than the other, most often.
That's why details matter :)
Sorry all, been kinda busy for a few months
Still waiting
Where did you encounter the nasal swab part ?
Yep
But, the company telegraphed that they are going to need some big cash from somewhere to design/build the "at scale" production stuff and that means probably dilution or some kind of debt or something - typically... so a little bit of bailing out is to be expected.
I didn't bet the farm and I can always load more so I'm just happy to wait and see. If it goes it goes big.
I don't think anything has really changed (yet)
Cool...
Not to poop on anything, but...
That machine demo did not look like 5,000 tests per hour (yet)
There is time to collect samples from people, transport them to the machine, label them, prep them, the machine looked like maybe 12 minutes.
So there is a way to go organizing the process into higher speeds, different machines perhaps to batch and rest/prep more volume faster for the scanner part.
@sab
We should be nearing the time when the boron neutron capture therapy kicks in, it has been a while for that to evolve.
Not sure how well that applies but seemingly any cancerous thing will have a higher metabolism and thus be more susceptible to this kind of 'radiation' therapy.
I'm happy you're still with us
Well, way back I always figured there would "be time after the announcement" to reposition. Years ago I think I was on about that.
I am excited for the part nobody has realized yet, if you equal what chemo can do, then chemo's days are numbered.
I think the part that everyone misses is that the benefit to the non chemo group was as large as the benefit of chemo to the chemo group.
Now then, those things being equal, it would seem that patients then have a choice. ( will have once some brain cells actually work )
I haven't looked in a week or so
But that was an interesting end of day spike
This is informative, a bit more in-depth on testing and statistics
I think it will be sudden, one of the big fish will go "Oh... look at that..." and we will be re-branded as IBM or something
Research report apparently available
( I never pay for these )
Interesting note is Fluorescence listed in the mix
https://www.openpr.com/news/2326507/covid-19-saliva-screening-test-potential-market-2021-growth
That's weird...
The Macallan 18 was pretty palatable about 10 years ago
Johnny Walker Blue
And this little one, Blair Athol
Dewars beats the pants off of what's left after that
(Incomming ! We have incomming !!!)
Email the author, John, he's nice to chat with
I'll bet he says something like it was due to the claim of projected production volume in the short term, does not include multiple(s), and buyout pricing.
The whole history is fascinating, fermenting and distilling
https://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/earliest-history-of-liquor-distilled-spirits-timelines-for-the-world/
It goes with "civilization"
Actually I think this sort of thing will be the future of the whiskey/bourbon industry
There's not enough good oak to do this with barrels anymore
One example of a commercial product is "Abomination", from San Francisco I think.
I haven't tried it, but their theory is sound, I've tried it to my limited degree, and it works fine.
Something to try
You can get either a large bottle or smaller samplers of things like Everclear and Old Smoky
Then, experiment soaking with oak chips of varying char
After about 6 weeks you can start tasting to see how they are doing
Aim for or dilute to about 110-120 proof for this process
I'm becoming dissatisfied with most bourbons lately and so I've taken up the challenge to produce something I like.
The process this way is faster than you might imagine and 90-95% as good as you can get the multi-year way ( on a good year, good oak )
It is rewarding to observe/taste the evolutions over time.
And boy do they evolve, harsh one time, mild the next, more firey this day, mellowed out a few days later, etc., etc.,
There's kind of a bad batch of oak going around lately
Angel's Envy, 1792 small batch, and 9-banded are doing well still, everything else seems to have become hit or miss, kinda rye-ey
I think if you read it again you'll see a few things about that, one, it did slightly better, and two, it certainly did not do any worse.
What appears to be the case so far is that either chemo attacked the same targets so they competed over the same turf, or the chemo wiped out the immune system and there was "little" but apparently still some benefit there.
Of course, remains to be seen when we get some publishing, but that's what it sounded like so far.
Fair point
As a counter-point to your fair point, there are "business" solutions to that, such as "pay for performance"
IF you later fall into this group or that group you either do or do not pay.
We're looking at something that just so far in its infancy appears to be able to save the lives of about 21,000 people a year.
I am not in the camp of people trying to figure out how to stop that from happening.
The question here, since it is non-toxic, and... assuming it becomes an option, then it is your choice.
What do YOU choose. ( Before whatever remains of the standard of care, as per everything about this trial since the beginning... )
In other words, you are inventing a problem that doesn't exist, imho
Why don't you go do that, ask an oncologist
"If I can take something now that is non-toxic that will help me if I happen to fall into a group that doesn't get chemo, would you prescribe that ?"
Ask that. See what happens
What would you do if it were you ?
Simple answer I think
Because otherwise they would be dead
Perhaps you could rephrase your question. You seem to be missing something.
The so called "low risk" group is perhaps best understood as "more likely to die from chemo than from the cancer" - but, there's still the cancer
To that, understand the meaning of "no toxicity" in the MK
etc., etc.,
This really isn't all that hard to follow at this point
The potential is there, IF/WHEN, there is a study with the goal to REPLACE chemo. For now, we can settle for "we're treating an unmet need".
On top of this there is a very simple observation
If you get H&N Cancer and you receive MK but no chemo you live 14% longer into year 5
If you get H&N Cancer and you receive Chemo you live about 14% longer into year 5
Either way you go, you live about 14% longer into year 5
Right now, there is no choice according to established practice to refuse the chemo (if you are on that path) and solely choose MK instead.
This is a "next question" for the future.
But, first things first. Is there a set of people we can make live longer or not. Answer seems to be "yes" and "a very significant amount of people"
This should be the end of it until we get more info.
I don't think anybody knows that
We do appear to know, pending publications, that we increase cancer sensitivity to radio therapy
i.e., if applied first
I see...
I think your next aha moment is "it is".
It happens to be "it is" MORE ( enough for statistical significance ) in a particular subgroup.
The "signal" seemed pervasive. Rising tide floated all boats.
Certain types of boats float higher. Enough to go "yay".
Actually the cyclophosphamide is used in low concentration as an immuno-suppressor, apparently part of the LEAPS process (or at least theory of) for arresting the likes of cytokine storm (or at least modulating immune response)
I complained about this earlier, but it was in the form of MK alone group apparently did better than with CiZ, this modulation apparently not necessary.
Again, all this remains to be seen clearly in a publishing
What do I know, but the idea appeared to be to reduce inflammation so that the lymphatics can get to where they need to be
thx
My positions are modest, I'm honestly more interested in the science of this so I am eagerly waiting the publications.
There will be a course to chart then, I don't like betting the farm. Sometimes I regret not doing that, but I haven't suffered disaster either.
That being said, tomorrow is Friday, and we declared something significant, and there are really big fish with a lot of money.
They invented the scramjet engine before there was an airplane to put it in
The born-neutron capture therapy also has potential to eliminate at least a lot of chemo
Cancer seems to be pretty complex, and requiring complex solutions to finally be rid of it
Tell that to ipilimumab and nivolumab
There will be more studies
I think you mean "before going to market"
Everybody will want to team up with this to see if their stuff makes our stuff better or vice versa. There's a lot of drugs that are not immunotherapy but boost immunotherapy or suppress this or that and move some road-block out of the way for something
That's fine
If it happens to me, I'd be like "Hey, I get a 40% chance to be in a group that will live 14% longer into year 5 where if I make it that far I might go on indefinitely ?"
We still have to see the publishings and secondary measures, it might also be "Hey, the size of the surgery in (all? some? most?) cases is dramatically reduced..."
Stuff like that remains to be seen
( and - mechanically - boron neutron capture therapy is coming out )
Think of it (perhaps) like this...
Once a light-bulb works, then you can further experiment with what kinds of gas to fill it with to make it work better.
This is the tip of the ice-berg
thanks
$7B, for starters