That's a complete give-away that you are a fictitious construct. No self-respecting Liverpool AFC supporter would admit in public to drinking Scotch whisky - that's only for Scotchmen and those men of a dubious sexual orientation, often accompanied (in a scouse twang) by the observation that "Yer smell just like a pox-doctor's clerk!". Even a retired "Local authority inspector" would know that. (Lily Savge would have told you that if she were still alive.)

For sure, it certainly will not !

Do you think that the judge may be getting just a wee bit fed up and irritated by the defendants?
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of villains.

Hi, Gary. I'm not sure that what you are suggesting would be applicable for widespread immunisation against acute (as against chronic) viral infections. Bioreactors could grow huge quantities of virus-infected cells exhibiting the viral epitopes against which the dendrocytes are sensitised (although the genetic changes caused by the virus might cause problems with cell viability and replication). To produce a dendrocytic vaccine they would then need to be lysed (no problem there) and then used to sensitise dendrocytes. If (as is now the case with DCVax-L) the resultant sensitised dendrocytes were to be used for 1 person only, the dendrocytes would be from the intended recipient so that their survival would not be a problem after being given back to the recipient.

If, however, the object were to immunise populations against viruses, the current system is not a practical way of doing it as the sensitised dendrocytes would not be from the recipient and so would engender an immunological response by the recipient against these "non-self" dendrocytes. Hopefully the injected dendrocytes would survive long enough to programme significant numbers of the recipient's T-cells to initiate the desired immunological response against the virus-infected cells etc. but in the process they would have programmed the recipients' own "self" dendrocytes against the injected "non-self" dendrocytes. This would mean that after one course of immunisation further injections of "non-self" dendrocytes would face the almost certain risk of instant destruction irrespective of what they were sensitised against - virus or malignancy. In short, immunisation using dendrocytes from somebody other than the intended recipient would be a "one-off" treatment.

For immunisation with an "all-cancer" vaccine (as I originally suggested) this might work as (hopefully) the one immunisation would cover all (or nearly all) known malignant epitopes from existing malignancies and so (hopefully) only one short course of treatment would be needed in a lifetime. However, as we have all recently seen, many viruses (especially respiratory ones) evolve rapidly so that current vaccines are rendered quickly useless and multiple courses of updated versions are needed to maintain immunity. After one course of a dendrocytic vaccine which uses dendrocytes from anybody other than the recipient, theoretically all further courses of any dendrocytic vaccine would be rendered useless unless the subsequent dendrocytic vaccine used dendrocytes from the recipient.

Best wishes.

Hi, Chiugray. Like you and iwasadiver I have little doubt that theoretically the DCvax family could be modified to seek out and eliminate virus infections, but I'm not sure about the practicalities involved. From the quote you give it looks like you and iwasadiver also recognise that its use would be for if a viral infection had become chronically embedded rather than for use in the acute phase of a viraemia. This would entirely relate to the length of time that the process of dendrocyte production in vivo takes meaning that by the time the "therapeutic vaccine" had been produced for the patient's specific viral infection the vast majority of virus infections would have resolved due to the body's immune response. Consequently, one can see that only chronic viral infections which don't respond to simpler treatments would be the scenario for DCVax.

Ex, Apceden looks to be an almost exact copy of the DCVax family in its method of production by a company in India which does not recognise Patent Law when it serves its own purposes, made in a very similar (if not exactly the same) method (ie it is a pirated product) and was approved by the Indian regulator, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO). Chat GPT comments thuswise on the Indian Regulator:

Apceden is not licenced for use in any countries regulated by the MHRA or FDA or the European Medicines Agency and one wonders about the ethos in which the CDSCO works. I would suggest that considering that Apceden appears at worst to be a pirated version of DCVax or at the very least a very close copy that avoids patent infringements and was approved in 2017 by the CDSCO (and no other regulator) that it is a somewhat "tarnished" product. Consequently, whilst your claim that it was the second dendrocytic "therapeutic vaccine" after Provenge (licenced in 2010) might be correct, it is possible that other pirated versions of DCVax are produced elsewhere in other countries without adequate regulatory control. Consequently, it is my belief that we should be dealing only with ethical treatments licenced in jurisdictions of the highest probity such as exists with the MHRA, the EMA and the FDA. On this criterion Apceden fails. However, I must congratulate you (or, more likely, your sponsor) for digging up these obscure products from the murky parallel world of pirated copies licenced by dubious regulators.

I have no knowledge about AF making the same claim about BCG as I did, but if he was claiming that it was not a "therapeutic vaccine" I would have agreed with him despite him being an odious character.

As for Imlyglic, even the company does not claim it has an immunologic effect:

I started my discussion with an essentially semantic argument - a discussion about what constitutes "vaccination" as distinct from other forms of medical treatment. I thought this might be of passing interest to others as "Vaccination" is historically a specific form of immunisation; the giving of cowpox virus (variola vaccinae) to an individual to prevent the later development of the infinitely more dangerous human smallpox (variola). This distinction is now irrelevant (but still interesting, I believe) because the term "Vaccination" has now become so hackneyed as to encompass all forms of immunisation as demonstrated by the opening sentence of the article whose web address you provided; viz.

My first paragraph ended with the statement
"Therapeutic vaccination" has entered the medical lexicon to encompass the means of using immune system activation (correctly called "immunisation") for therapeutic purposes to treat established disease. It really should not be called a form of immunisation, let alone vaccination, but again, this is a matter of semantics. It is irrelevant to what I postulated as a possible future use of the DCVax methodology and which was the aim of what I wrote.
As to the 3 examples of "therapeutic immunisation/vaccination" which you provide:
1] I do not think the the use of BCG in the treatment in non-disseminated bladder cancer really fits the description of a specific immune system activation. Its mode of action has not (as far as I am aware) been elucidated - it has certainly not been found to stimulate the immune system to specifically attack the cancerous cells - and appears to be the result of a generalised inflammatory response of the superficial bladder which as a side effect destroys some of the cancerous cells. It is ineffective if the tumour has extended into the muscle layer of the bladder indicating the lack of any systemic effect. It is not much different than the pre-antibiotic era treatment of syphilis by infecting the patient with malaria. This killed many of the spirochaetes (which are heat sensitive) during the recurrent bouts of very high temperatures that malaria causes.
2] Provenge - my mistake; the DCVax family is not the first "therapeutic vaccination" but is the second.
3] Imlygic: As far as I'm aware, the modified oncolytic herpes virus that is used attacks only the melanoma cells in the immediate vicinity of the injection and any immune response is localised, not having any effect on distant metastases. This is possibly because the oncolytic virus does not spread far from the site of injection due to the response by the host's immunological system. I would hesitate to call this any form of immunisation as the damage to the melanoma cells appears not to be due to immune system activation as distant sites of malignant melanoma cells are not attacked.

ex, I think that you've missed the point that I was trying (perhaps long windedly and clumsily) to make - that potentially the DCVax platform could be developed into one that protects individuals from developing cancer in the first place rather than just treating established malignancies as is currently the case. The 3 treatments that you mention are just that - treatments for established disease, not preventing it in the first place.

Best wishes.

Hi, 3heads. You have the better of me on this one beyond the fact that Mithridatization sounds very similar to desensitisation in allergic conditions. However, I suspect that Mithridaticel might not trip off the tongue as easily as the ad-men would like and that something more snappy would be their choice.

Best wishes.

George, I am not au fait with the case you mention but if he were part of the trial there would be no alteration to the DCVax-L.

If he had been given DCVax-L on "compassionate" grounds (ie after closure of the DCVax-L Phase 3 study) he probably was treated additionally with poly-ICLC and/or pembrolizumab.

If he was not given DCVax-L he might have been part of Dr. Mulholland's trial at University College, London (UCL) which was investigating whether the addition of ipilimumab (an anti-CTLA monoclonal antibody) to the current Standard of Care (SOL) is beneficial.

Best wishes.

Historically vaccines have been solely prophylactic (preventative) agents as a way of preventing infectious diseases. One of the first was introduced by Edward Jenner who treated people with infectious material from patients with the mild infection of cowpox (variola vaccinae - Latin for "smallpox of the cow") to prevent the potentially fatal human Smallpox (variola). He named the process Vaccination (for obvious reasons). With the DCVax family we now have the first examples of established disease being treated by vaccination (incorrectly named from my point of view).

With Dr Bosch's observation that there is a considerable overlap of malignant epitopes between various unrelated malignancies, a potential new realm of prophylaxis (ie "true" vaccination) opens up. This would be the prevention (by vaccination) of many/most/all malignant diseases using a simple extension of the the DCVax method which for the mid-term future would be the only way of achieving this end. The only alteration to the method would be the nature of the lysate to which the individual's dendrocytes are exposed. Instead of the lysate being derived from the patient';s own tumour, it would be derived from as many different malignant tumours from as many different individuals as would be considered necessary or practical. A continuous supply of the tumour cells could be maintained by tissue culture and a suitable "cocktail" could be worked up to contain as many known malignant epitopes as possible. These would then be lysed as per usual and the individuals dendrocytes exposed to the lysate as per usual. Courses of the vaccine would then be given to sensitise the immune system to all known malignant epitopes so that all malignant cells would be whopped off as soon as they mutated with malignant epitopes appearing on their surfaces.

Because the malignant cells are derived from different individuals some dendrocytes will be sensitised to the foreign (non-malignant) genetic material but this should not cause any problems unless the immunised individual needed an organ transplant when the clones of dendrocytes sensitised in this way may (but not must) be activated against the transplant.

It is clear that this expensive treatment would not achieve instant universal acceptance but I have no doubt that enough very rich people would undoubtedly be sufficiently keen to avoid developing cancer that a steady income could be achieved by the company until the price were driven down and it could enter general use

Firstly, I am not your "mate" nor the mate of anybody who peddles falsities and unsubstantiated claims.
Secondly, even though English is my first language I do not understand the thought processes which produce your observation (???) on "hurt feelings not counting on my part" and so its relevance in your reply (always presuming that there is some) is totally lost on me.
Thirdly, as to what I deem to be untrue in your statement (in post #676545) starts with the "I" in the first paragraph and encompasses everything up to the "CHM" in the final paragraph.

Then you clearly know and are able to learn very little.
"Doc"

Waste of their time and of our time as the assertion is so patently false and risible that only a fellow-traveler of limited intelligence is likely to believe in its veracity.

Erg, you shouldn't call the greatly esteemed Sir Pumpernickel, Sir Pimplepopper, just because he's afflicted with fulminating pustular acne to disfigure his youthful adolescent features - its c-c-c-c-c-ruel to m-m-m-m-m-m-mock-k-k-k-k-k the a-a-a-a-a-af-f-f-f-f-f-f-fl-l-l-l-l-icte-e-e-e-e-d-d-d-d-d-d.

Well, don't recommend yours as he is clearly failing where you are concerned.

Smitty, as much as I can sympathise with your position, I believe that you are wrong. Your basic premise, "You and others posters are the sole reason why they even post here" is unfounded on any evidence, whilst the alternative thesis (as per "Poor Boy" in private messages displayed on this board) is that those spreading falsehoods and distortions against NWBO are paid to do so. This is irrespective of whether or not anybody responded to their messages about NWBO being a deceitful company and its bogus products. They are not in it because they believe that what they are saying is the truth or for the glory of winning the argument, they are in it for the money.
If nobody responded to their obvious lies this board would soon become a desert of misinformation labeling the company as rogues and worse and DCVax as being unproven with no demonstrable pharmacological effects. At the very least, on reading this board any prospective purchaser of shares in NWBO would be scared off from touching it with a bargepole. It is only by correcting all the egregious falsehoods and distortions can this board be kept as a living forum instead of being a desert of lies.

... the importance of which will probably be totally undermined by the imminent licencing of the DCVax family.

More like "Sloppy Thinking" on the ecologist's part. His thesis is that "Peer Review" inhibits innovative scientific development and by that token he condemns it as inimical to true scientific progress. The only people who will truly accept such a thesis are those deluded followers of cod-science which has no demonstrable basis underpinning it.

DCVax disproves his contention since it is an innovative development in cancer therapy and by his lights "peer review" should have stifled its acceptance by the scientific community. Instead, the peer review did not stifle innovation but embraced it. Those who have tried to stifle it have usually done so because they have competing interests (undeclared) which DCVax will render obsolete when it becomes the new paradigm for cancer therapy. When DCVax is licensed their hopes for their own day in the scientific limelight will disappear and with it any hopes of financial reward will evaporate like the morning mist under a blazing sun.

Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

Inquirig

We are doing precisely that with your posts but you keep on assailing this board by spewing out the same old rubbish for hours on end. Follow your own advice and put your own nonsense and anecdotal evidence to bed once and for all.

DD,

One has to believe that the MHRA exists and acts in the best interests of patients by licencing drugs which are clearly of benefit to patients, excluding those which are either of no benefit or whose side effects outweigh the benefits. It cannot carry out its function by existing in a vacuum, excluding all information which is not specifically included in the applications on which it is adjudicating. If late in the day credible concerns began to appear in learned journals or the press about a medication which it was just about to licence, I have not a scintilla of doubt that the MRHA would take that information on board and include it in its decision to, at the very least, delay a decision. This would ensure that patients would not be put at risk.

At the other end of the spectrum, I cannot believe that credible early reports of considerable improvements in the efficacy of DCVac-L when combined with poly-ICLC +/- pembrolizumab +/- PLX-3397 will not have a positive effect on how those making the decision come to their conclusions even if the effect is wholly subliminal.

I only hope that where his cancer is concerned King Charles does not put too much faith in his GP who is a devotee of complementary medicine, especially homeopathy, and that his GP has enough common sense not to recommend those forms of treatment as the primary approach to eradicating the malignancy (whatever it may be).

Further to exwannabe's reply, it was stated specifically that the cancer was not prostate cancer - but no indication otherwise as to what or where the cancer was.

In which case one presumes that the -ig of Inquirig stands for "ignorance" in all its forms.

"An intelligent conversation" is a purely subjective assessment and your assessment of your own conversation with Captain Obvious is that of a self-selected assessor assessing his own performance. Consequently, it is as clear as a bell to even the meanest intelligence that your self-assessment can not be worth a whole hill of beans because of the inherent bias that exists.

The fact that you believe your own conversation to be "intelligent" in the face of all the unintelligent activity you have so far demonstrated on this board just goes to show how unintelligent and lacking in self-awareness you and your conversations are. Begone.

.. and that she did a lousy job of researching the current advances in treatment of GBM.

Wot a Numpty!! And "Yes", you should keep going ... as far away as possible from this board.

.. and modest to boot! Good on yer, Flip!

exWannabe can only be considered an enemy of NWBO but he sometimes seem so friendly towards us, the deluded longs, that he has been with us so excessively long that he's developing "Stockholm Syndrome".

You own "4.3M shares!!! Do you mean in NWBO or in other companies?

I recall that it was the local authority in Cambridge ("The Greater Cambridge Council") which put money into NWBO's development which is in its South Cambridgeshire Science Park (or something similar).

What actually are the "Primary Completion" and the "Secondary Completion" Dates?

Says who and with evidence from which far-right history archive?

What a nasty smell it is that is emanating from that bunkum you are spinning. Clearly your avatar is apt as your Theory Suits your own selfish aims alone

I hope you meant a decimal point and are not insinuating that he/she is an hermaphrodite who is just about to discover that he/she is in an "interesting condition".

Interesting resource (Bard) that you posted.

Thanks

Great!, JB - but I wonder which snake-oil salesman conned you into buying it in the first place.

True but nitpicking.

Tony, I hope that your pessimism is unfounded.