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.
I think they had to go with OS for the entire ITT population vs historical norms. They did make a mistake in selecting progression as the primary endpoint, but this is how I think that happened: Both LL and LP lost family members to cancer. I think LL lost her mom to GBM while LP lost her father and sister to other forms of cancer. Those experiences were huge motivators for two very powerful people. Powerful in very different ways, complementing each other. They were very excited about the potential for DCVax and did not think it would be fair to placebo patients to deny them the treatment after progression, so they went with progression as the primary endpoint with crossover to the treatment arm. (Though hard to say how much $ motivation mixed in since progression could allow a shorter, cheaper trial.) But progression turned out to be a poor indicator for an immunotherapy efficacy because progression is detected by expansion perceived as growth while inflammation, which is the goal, initially results in expansion. So they had to fall back on the secondary endpoint, OS. But the crossover complicated OS, lowering the difference in longevity for the initial control patients and the treatment patients. That forced them to go with the entire ITT population with an efficacy watered down by the fact that some patients got the treatment later than optimum. With diluted efficacy, they had to rely on the tendency for immunotherapies to gain on chemotherapies in the very long haul, in this case, over historical norms. And trying to compare to historical norms is very dicey business. Every detail about patients that could come into play has to be catalogued and accounted for to give the submittal any chance of consideration by the FDA, and a distant endpoint would have to be predetermined to add credibility. A distant endpoint, however, aligned with this advantage that immunotherapies have over chemotherapies.
Broadcasting the situation could put patients at risk... maybe. Maybe a reason for silence. I am assuming they really are done now.
The standing situation is apparent to me. Some assumptions, but not many. If you have followed this company closely enough or long enough to know the trial history, the standing (likely) situation should be apparent. And with that view, why they can't talk about the standing situation is apparent. It's the same reason that nobody should talk about it, including me. Not talking about an analysis of the numbers, just the basic trial structure and basic history.
Sounds good. Sounds familiar, but I am a little rusty on 273 benefits. Thanks for the memory... so to speak.
The reduction in skull and brain size as we age is certainly connected to a reduction in HGH levels, but the amount of exercise you get effects your HGH levels as well as your cardiovascular horsepower. These things are all connected. (but do not fall for those HGH stimulator supplements! They are a scam because they only work for a few weeks or months, then you are absolutely screwed.) Exercise of your cardiovascular is the underlying solution and or any other natural means to raise HGH levels. If 273 makes people feel better while doing it's anti-oxidant and related things, then hopefully they use some of that energy to get more exercise... mostly walking, and that in turn would reduce brain shrinkage and thus the need for brain filler, completing the circle.
Do Amyloid Plaques in the brain perform some kind of function? The brain shrinks as you get into later years, probably because the heart-lung capacity shrinks, so everything has to shrink. The skull also shrinks, but does it shrink as fast as the brain? If not, the brain would become loose and possibly more vulnerable to trauma, maybe even minor trauma. So beefing up the brain with distributed material would serve a purpose, even if accidental. Amyloid plaques probably create many problems with waste transfer, etc, but are these problems always greater than the possible advantage of adding structure? I don't know. I am not really a doctor, nor have I spent any time studying these things, but I have wondered about this possibility as far back as when people started blaming Aluminum (chlorohydrate, from deoderants) for Alzheimer's because more aluminum crystals were found in the brains of Alzheimer's victims than in other peoples brains. Just wondering and wondering if anyone has seen discussions about these things.
This time for sure....
1/3 because it is a smaller trial and less well known and trusted company. But not 1/10 because... I am buying the coolaide to a large extent. I like the large number of biomarkers during the phase 2's... etc..
$6.7B = 1/3 of market's defacto valuation of Biogen's Aducanumab.
MJFF recent $1M funding of a 273 study coincides with extended study results from the first small group of Alz patients. It appears that MJFF wanted those long term study results before going further. Appearances can be deceiving... and no PR on those results is a little concerning, but I trust MJFF more than any PR anyway. It is possible that the long term continuation study only showed that 273 did no harm... and maybe that is all MJFF needed to know to move forward, but even if so; if that was good enough for MJFF to move, then it is very likely enough to spark further interest from others. And those results may have shown much more than safety, though such a small group is not super meaningful, but that depends on how you view it. That lack of SSN might be the only reason they did not PR the results. Would be nice to know though. A lot has changed over the last few years. Trials have expanded and IP has matured. The Ph2/3 for Alz is almost fully enrolled at this point. To gauge the value of an Alz pill, recall the drop in Biogen's market cap after their 3/21/2019 announcement that they were discontinuing their ongoing P3 study on Aducanumab (because it didnt work). The market cap dropped $17B that day and another $4B over the next few days to a week. Just the possibility of that drug getting approved was valued at $20B by the market. That study had 1638 participants, however, much larger than Anavex's current P2/3 with 450 participants. With such a large patient group, Biogen did not have to show much efficacy to win approval, yet they conceded they could not even do that. Anavex will have to show more significant efficacy to get approval with their smaller, ongoing P3 trial, but is that so unlikely? Net Net... I think Anavex is already worth close to $6.7B. Clearly more than $20B with a win. Possibly much more. And they have multiple studies in their pipeline including some other very large markets. The Rett studies are not significant markets, but they are 1) Very nice things to do 2) Easy paths to approval 3)Any approvals would probably lubricate the approval process for other indications... probably part of strategy. But I should not speak for Missling. I will say, he appears to be the real deal. He appears to me to be a genius regarding funding, IP, chosen trials, trial protocols, and timing. He is a blessing if these drugs are real and they very well might be.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02484547?term=aducanumab&cond=Alzheimer+Disease&draw=2&rank=4
The point I was making was that the number of deaths would (apparently) not have been that different if we had not put the largest economy in the world on hold, but instead, like the Swedes, had focused on just protecting the most vulnerable. There is about a 22% difference, apparently. Same goes for the side effects you list. They would all scale with deaths. Unless these numbers are wrong, and they might be, we made the wrong move, period, and Sweden made the right move. I am talking in hind-sight, but I did make similar arguments early into the pandemic, here on ihub. We should change course at this point in my opinion... if these numbers are anywhere close to being right. Your error is that you do not realize how much money $2T is and what good could have be done with it. A trillion dollars is a million million dollars. You need to let that sink in.
Interesting Calculation, and Hopefully Flawed: Using data from the "Worldometer"; Take deaths per million in Sweden compared to same for US... then multiply Swedish excess (Sweden - US) by US population to determine how many lives we saved with our sanctions. Admittedly not a fantastic direct comparison... but wait to the end here. So you have a rough estimate for the lives we saved for $? $2T? $3T? Half of GNP for 4 months = $22T/8 = 2.75T? I think $2.75T is pretty conservative. But subtract the population scaled expenses for Sweden for their measures to protect the elderly and whatever other minimal things they did. Maybe $.25T? I think that is a fair estimate. So the scaled effective extra we spent was about $2.5T. The number we saved over Sweden, all scaled to population, by my calc was 33,128 people. Cost per person saved = $75M. I believe that is about 500 fold what we normally alot to save a life,and often we alot $0. Not sure of any of this, but even if I am off by a factor of 10... and it could be a factor of 10 in the other direction...
If this is anywhere close, then it matters. We could have saved many more lives with that money buying insulin or dialysis or brain surgeries or heart surgeries, or food. But again, hopefully there is something wrong in these calculations and assumptions. Sweden is less densely populated... but not by a huge factor. Maybe a factor of 2. The Swedes have a different culture... they have a different average tolerance for Covid-19, probably. All those things could add up to a factor of 5? Even then we have a 100 fold problem here. Find the errors in these calcs and assumptions.
Thanks for providing all the links! But taking a quick look, I am a little dazed and confused. Maybe it will gel if I keep reading, but in the mean time, may I ask another related question: (Assuming the answer is yes):
"How many amino acids the TCR needs to interact with to notice the difference is may be as little as 1 and as many as the whole peptide chain."
So what size/length are the protein segments presented by the common cells for use in presenting possible mutations? Are they in that same 8 to 17 amino acid range? And are they long enough to display folding... hydrogen bonds, disulfide bonds...? Do they have shape? Are you saying that the T-Cells can detect shape, and not just sequence. Like an antibody would detect and mate with shape including electrostatic mapping?
I had always thought of the T-Cell detection of mutants strands as a straight sequence analysis or mating of some kind... linear.
Thanks!
On topic would be the question of whether NWBIO will manage to drag this out until ASCO 2021. Less on topic would be the following question posed to the many biomedical experts and just smart people that have done a lot of reading while following NWBO: What length amino-acid/protein segments does the immune system use in determining whether a given protein segment, presented on the cell surface, is a mutation? What length do they test/look-at. Not what length are the polymers, but rather, how many bases/amino acids do they look at at once?
Is it 20 amino acids long that it/they looks at? 40? 400? My guess would be 30, but I don't want to guess. There are many places where this look at the sequences occurs. Most important here would be T Cells examining strands protruding from a cell wall or presented by Dendritic cells or other strand/mutation scavengers in the lymph nodes..
Webcast hangs after 1 to 5 seconds. Refresh and try again and same thing every time. What the hell? During trading hours!
Referencing my last two recent posts, extending discussion: I arrived at $2M per person saved by work shut down in the US. But that was based on the max projected deaths if we did nothing, 2.2M. The death count range projected if we did nothing was 1.5M to 2.2M. So, allowing that range, what we have spent so far via work shut-down per death saved is actually $2M to $3M.
Restated: 2.2M was the max projected death toll in the US if we had just done nothing. Assuming that is right, then the max if we had implemented all measures other than work stoppage would be less. Maybe not as much suppression as the S. Koreans (who again did not stop going to work) since we started later and did not have test kits etc.., but still there would be some suppression and 2 fold is a reasonable estimate. So, call it 1.1M deaths worst case. Call estimated deaths with current scheme including stopping work as 100K. Then we saved 1M deaths with work stoppage that cost about $2T. That is $2M per person. That is what I was trying to say in my previous post. So does that make sense? Not sure. I don't think we normally spend that kind of money. Maybe the toll on health workers if we did nothing would be so high that it had to be avoided even if other considerations do not point toward work stoppage making sense. Not sure.
Discussion by a pro on modeling CVirus spread and deaths. (See link at end of post.) He is talking about India, but there is some reference to the US and some reference to modeling in general. One could probably find more in depth discussion of his modeling if you search with his name included. As for the currently muted fan of my modeling: He is certainly right that I should not have tried to model the data given the weight of the matter. But I want to point out a few things: 1) Someone asked me to report the daily numbers, and I did, (adding commentary / analysis that was questionable). 2) As I posted further, I was continuing from my previous posts, in my mind, so any qualifications, such as, "If this data point is not noise", were assumed in later posts. 3) I had said in the first post that I had done a complex analysis and then threw it out, realizing I had used the wrong data set to begin with. He then flammed my having used the complex analysis which made no sense since I had said I threw it out and I did not say what data set I had used so his correction of what High School math I should have employed made no sense. You have to know what data set to know what math to use. That was my first post and the only one referencing the more complex, errant calculations, so he definitely read that post, but not very carefully. To get that radical without really reading a post is a little nuts. He was right that I should not have posted my subsequent simplistic analysis, but in every detail he was wrong and flat out irrational. But let me piss him off further here. I am struggling with this, and would like feedback... maybe from a more rational person though. I believe the projected range of deaths in the US if we had not done anything has been stated as 2.2 Million. That was top of the range. We already spent $2.2T, primarily in stimulus to offset the work restrictions. That is $1M per person saved if you consider the number that will die with restrictions in place to be much fewer than 2.2 Million. I don't think we normally spend that kind of money on saving people. But maybe one of my numbers is off here. But if those numbers are right, consider this further: South Korea accomplished their suppression of spread without stopping people from going to work. There are other things that can be done besides stopping work, so the 2.2M deaths in the US drops if we do those things but still allow people to go to work. So we are spending more than $1M to save each person... and still risking a recession or possibly a depression in this country (USA) as a result of the work shut-down. The stimulus does not really fix that. Further, that $2.2T stimulus could be used in the near future as an excuse to gut Social Security or some other important federal budget sector. I'm not saying that I am certain that we did the wrong thing, I am just wondering, and I think you have to look at this viewpoint even if in the end you decide we did the right thing. How many deaths from suicide alone were the result of the "Great Depression" in the US? How many from the very dangerous jobs created to pull us out? How many from exposure during homelessness? How many from bad nutrition and disease spread due to less medical care? Does "free government provided medical care" fix that? Not sure that more spending will fix the astronomical spending we have done so far. And that $2.2T is really just for one month or so of bandaid. A critical month that includes critical April, but it is just a month or so. South Korea started earlier than us, so maybe our more extreme moves were needed as a result. But at least allow this: May 5 or so, when Trump (who I am no fan of) says we need to go back to work, recall that the South Koreans did not stop work. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/least-75-000-coronavirus-infections-041207265.html
No I didn't misunderstand that. The curves start off looking like a simple exponential (E^t/tau) which increases slope forever. That is the scariest part by far. But then they start to lose slope, so they are no longer that simple exponential. True they never were, but they behaved like one in the beginning. A constant slope in rate of death or infection may be a horrible thing, but it is not nearly as scary as a constant increase in slope in the rate of death or infection. That is what I was saying, and that is simply true. I didn't say everything was ok, I said I stopped shitting my pants.
There are exponentials that asymptote to some fixed value and no slope, (1 - E^-t/tau) but those start out with a finite slope and then continuously decrease slope, not start with zero slope then increase slope such as our curves. If these curves where well behaved and symmetric, they might model ok as sigmoidal curves which are related to sign waves and so can probably be represented as complex exponentials (function of E^ix). But that is the only kind of exponential that resembles these curves for their entirety. These are not exponentials. Just portions of them are shaped like exponentials. This stuff is not my area, I would agree with that. I have never spent any time on bio / disease spread modeling, and if someone on the board has, and that could very well be, I hope I haven't taken up any of their oxygen.
**********************************************************
In response to:
"I don't think you fully understand the difference between a "linear" increase and an "exponential" increase. When you say "now we are seeing a very small linear increase" -- it's just patently false. Even if it flattened out now, we're looking at 20K new cases per day. That's a *huge* linear increase, even if it's not growing exponentially. You're looking at the difference in changes, rather than the changes themselves.
To go back to high school calculus -- you're looking at the derivative, when we need to be looking at the integral. We care about the area under the curve (i.e., new cases), not whether the curve is flat (an increase in the daily new cases). Even one new case shows that transmission is not under control and the problem continues to grow."
**********************************************************
You would see Asians and only Asians using masks here in the USA in the past. I thought it was often because they were sick and not wanting to spread it, but I wasn't sure.
A month ago, seeing that behavior looked strange in the USA. For rest of our lives that will probably look a lot less strange and a lot more smart and unselfish.
For only the sick to have to wear masks, when they do need to go out, would seem a blessing.
Your saying that South Koreans continued to go to work and still managed that good control of the virus?
Horrible New Numbers US CVirus: New Deaths yesterday (912) almost triple the low number seen 2 days ago (363) which had been a drop from the day before (525). That number turned out to be an outlier bringing false hope.
Daily new cases also took a discontinuous jump up yesterday.
Chart circulating the news (if true) puts need for extreme measures in perspective stating "model" says w/o intervention # deaths now believed would have been in range {1.5M-2.2M} while with this extreme intervention range is expected to be {100K --> 240K}. For scaling, US annual deaths from flu are in the range {12K-->61K}.
So w/o intervention that model says CVirus deaths could have been about 67 fold that of the flu while with intervention more like 5.7 x that of the flu.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
I agree with everything you say, and said nothing different except the following: With the observed changes in these curves there is absolutely reason to be hopeful that we will soon see the rate of new daily cases drop. If so, that will be a big deal. We have been seeing an exponential rate of increase in the number of daily new cases, and now we are seeing a very small linear increase. It might not make that turn downward for 2 years, but just looking at the curves, it looks more likely to be 2 days to 2 weeks. It probably does not make sense to expect the down curve to look like the up curve, as I have talked about, but I qualified that, as I have qualified everything else. I have not differed from what you are saying in detail, though maybe so in the gist and spirit. We need to remain very cautious and I already see people being lax as of yesterday as the weather had improved in California, and I agree, that is dangerous.
There is still a small increase in daily new cases in the US, but the percent increase has dropped 10 fold in the last 4 days down to a 2.2% increase today, or reported today. The last 6 daily new cases percent increases have been {20.5%, 29.0%, 8.5%, 4.1%, 2.4%, 2.2%}.
Daily New Deaths Up in US today. Yesterday's down was in fact "noise". New cases for the day have nearly flattened but where not lower, a tad up I think, but basically flat. So US situation appears to have reached a steady state but the US has not yet turned the corner. I was worried that yesterday's drop in daily deaths might be noise and knew that if so, today could be discontinuously higher... and it was. The last 6 days of new daily death tolls are posted as {247, 268, 400, 525, 363, 573}. I owned stock in a company that makes a drug known to be useful for lung infections. I had owned it from before this crisis emerged. Yesterday it tanked in response to this very large noise in the data. It tanked right as I had to sell it to pay rent as did many. That "noise" was very fortunate for somebody. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
USA and NY New Daily Cases etc..
It is a little early to celebrate with relaxation of caution being so automatic a reflex to any good news and with the resulting delay of resolution so costly, but it looks like we have peaked in daily new cases in both the wider USA and in NY and we may have started down in new deaths in the US. Again, a tad early to feel great about this but it brings some relief of stress.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-city-coronavirus-cases-over-time-chart-2020-3
New Cases probably makes more sense to decide how well we are doing than new Deaths. But still, a projected low death count is good news.
Daily new deaths in the US were down in the last PR'd count. I think that is why the market is up. Of course that lower new death count could be noise, but if it really peaked on 3/28, and continues down in the same shape that it came up, it could be as low as 4440 accumulated (total) deaths as we approach very low daily numbers near April 16.
These low numbers should make me wonder if we didn't need to spend the $2.2T, as I wondered yesterday... but they don't. They make me feel like there is light at the end of the tunnel (with residual good practices) and we did the right thing. I am happy, but know things could turn for the worse tomorrow. Further; this was a very simple calculation... just doubling the numbers for the apparent peak on 3/28. But I had done a very complex calc first. A calc that in retrospect, made absolutely no sense. I had a sigmoid model with integrals etc... and all on the wrong data. So... beware my estimates.
I had a facebook friend up in Washington State disappear suddenly about 2 weeks ago. She had cancer but was doing great before this outbreak. She was a very positive person and posted often, so there is a void. It's about 50:50 that she did get this virus and is ill or gone. But that's nothing like losing a father in law, especially if you were close.
I am biased because the economic effects of the moratorium on working has caught me at a very low point and I don't qualify for US stimulus. But we just spent $2.2T, mostly to try to prop up our economy during this clamp down on working for a living. That scales the effect, and that is only about a months worth of effect. I don't want to try to put a $ value on a life, but I think you have to in the following way. How many lives could we have saved by spending that $2.2T on other care. Maybe even focused on care for the elderly. And how many lives will we lose in the near future if we hold this country in economic lock-down. Recall from the 2008/2009 collapse that when money dries up to a critical point, the machine just stops. In this case we have frozen the very part of the machine that makes real money. Not paper money, but actual value, other than medical and a shell of other services. This shut-down is a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig deal. I am no fan of Trump, and do not want to see him re-elected, but I think he is right that we have to go back to work soon. You are apparently a real MD, so I am interested in your opinion. Myself I have an MSEE and sometimes get to work in my chosen field of Medical Device development, sometimes work less exciting technical positions, and sometimes do whatever I can do to survive... such as right now.
My condolences. Just read your post.
Thank you Xena. I have gone back and forth on this thing, so data is king.
Yes on one hand. Some people saying... but it is additive. It doesn't replace the flu. ???? So we should send the world into a financial depression because it might get as big as the flu? Not sure that makes sense. But, me, I will feel a lot better when I see that things have peaked in the US. I don't think they have peaked in Italy, and unless many to most have already been exposed, not sure there is good reason to assume it will peak soon. China might be lying about their data, and they had available stricter control methods. South Korea though... it has turned the corner and is way down. They make things look hopeful. Though they started earlier, did a better job, and have more control than us like the Chinese. Still they make it look like a relatively normal disease at least in terms of numbers. But Italy is still climbing. I think it is the unknown that is the most concerning. If it continues to climb as it has been then maybe we will far surpass the deaths by the flu. But I agree that is what it should take for it to be worth shutting down the country... if that is what you are saying. But... the unknown. Again, will be nice to see the curves of new cases and new deaths turn over and start to head down.
Thanks Flipper! I had scanned the web about 10 days ago for an antibody test and the few hits that I got said there was no such test and it would take a year to develop. About 4 days ago I messaged my local congressperson with the question of why there was no antibody test in development given the utility and urgent need. The next day I saw 4 different threads as first google search responses with pics, asking for anybody who knows where an antibody tester could be found. Myself I was caught being quite poor in this shut-down, between good tech jobs, and now not even allowed to work the crappy craigslist labor gigs that I normally work to survive between those good jobs. So this lockdown is very real to me. Renting here in San Jose (Silicon Valley) I recently received two scary notices from my landlord. First a notice saying that you are only allowed to be late if you have proof of employment. Craigslist labor gigs obligate you to pay taxes here in the US via 1099 misc but they do not come with proof of employment. They are cash. The notices came with reference to relevant legal statutes. The next day I hear our CA governor announce that regarding postponing evictions, that some states are doing that, but that they have not yet figured out a way to do that in California. He says that California is different... you know. Much more complicated legally than other states. The next day I get a legal notice from the landlord, very formal looking, listing statutes regarding sufficient cause for eviction. All this while under state order to not work... which I understand and abide by, but with me knowing that I probably had this virus with mild symptoms 3 weeks ago. Very unusual shortness of breath and fatigue with loss of leg strength followed by a brief fever. This was before they were doing any testing. The governor apparently came up with an eviction restriction a couple of days later, but it likely requires proof of prior employment just as the fed bailout and stimulus for my ilk requires proof of interrupted employment. I have been in my rental for 8 years without any issues paying rent. I am off to try to get work stocking shelves at the local stores, but so far no luck there. Rent is due in 2 days. I hope that antibody test becomes available soon here in California so I get back to working construction or maybe finally land a tech job again.
Good stuff Flipper. But I wish I knew why nobody is able to design an antibody test kit. The economic depression that absolutely could evolve here in the US and maybe the rest of the world, as a result of work restrictions might kill more people than the virus. Part of the solution might be to have a test to see who has already developed an immunity for the virus. That would be an antibody test. I read it would take a year. Not talking about a vaccine. An antibody test kit. Why so quick to develop a test for the virus but so hard to develop one to see who should not be under the thumb of these martial laws?
Never mind.
I had angrily spoken to them once during one of their parties, long before things came to a head. After that was when my dad asked me to not confront them again. So it is not like I didn't try to make them aware.
I would much later learn that their party that night was the 18th birthday party for an extremely good looking local girl. Those bikers ranged in age from about 30 to 45. The leader was about 33. I was 46.
I can't know for certain why that incident stopped them, but it did. Nobody called the police that night, but they knew they could have been arrested since they came onto my folks property. Of course I could have been fined for littering. Maybe they became drunk with power over the years as they became more and more outrageous and nobody did anything about it, as their group grew larger and larger, and this slap in the face sobered them. Or maybe they just didn't realize what a nuisance they had become and it took something radical to wake them up. Some people might guess that they had not had any fathering or proper fathering and they were begging for guidance. "Searching for boundaries.".
Not sure myself. I think their sobering-up to the damage they were doing was the biggest part with their legal predicament being second.
But... one of their gang had told the gang that I was nothing to worry about. That guy was a thorn in my side from an early age, even after I finally boxed him at about age 12 to shut him up. That boxing match, with gloves, lasted about 5 seconds. One punch to his solar plexus and he was toast. I didn't win the fight that night with the lead biker, but I did throw him to his back from standing at one point with a pretty nice upper body move, though I couldn't hold him down for long. He did get in 10 smacks to my mouth when I was in a head-lock, but I got a take down and near fall! He knew after that while he could take me, I was not push-over. So he knew after that night that there were people out there that would stand up to him and could. And... the father that moved in was a pretty big dude. An HP Engineer... probably not someone that would go toe to toe, but this biker now knew he could not assume that.
I didn't give up in that fight even though I was being pummelled repeatedly in the mouth. The other bikers broke it up out of concern that the police might arrive soon.
Some mix of the above.
Thanks Ou. Back when I started on this board, nobody here knew about checkpoint functions. I think they are the fly in the ointment and the alleged long tail might represent the patients that do not have overexpressed checkpoint function.
I remember realizing about a year in that us early posters, including Flipper and John, were a second generation of posters. There was apparently a dark period where the first wave fell away through multiple reverse splits, before NWBO was able to re-emerge as a new miracle cure. Realizing that was a bummer. That said; if DCVax-L ultimately proves out... if that tail is real, then all that hating on LP should turn to admiration because all of our pain is nothing compared to the pain of the victims of GBM and other cancers, and their friends and family. Recall that LP lost her father and a sister to cancer, and that may have more to do with her tenacity than the infamy of her former employer.
For the record, that brief but nasty bout with the biker happened on my folks' property. The new neighbor's biker-(defacto)-gang had turned the very pleasant middle suburbia where I grew up during my wonder years into a hellish place for my folks during their retirement. The neighbor bikers were letting their two pit-bulls hang out on their front and side lawns, unleashed. My 77 year old mom tried to start taking walks but was chased onto her porch by the two pit bulls. The postman had filed a complaint about the dogs, but nothing was done. Those bikers had connections. I told my dad I was going to talk to them, but he asked me to not do that. Though nobody would guess it, my dad was a tough little guy (youngest major in the marine core in 1943 and did not go to a military academy), but he was nearly 80 years old, and I would not be there to protect him all the time. Then the bikers started having parties in their back-yard that ran until 2AM. Their house was on a corner, so their backyard faced the front of my folks side yard... the music blasted right into my folks bedroom window, frightening my mom and keeping her up late nights. They blasted many hundreds of Watts, maybe 700 Watts nor so, and with elevated speakers. After my folks moved out and put the house up for sale, I was there painting etc on the last night of prep for sale. I slept on the kitchen floor. Those neighbors were having one of those parties. At 9:15PM they set off a pack of firecrackers on the metal roof of a shed they had built in the back corner of their backyard. This was the corner closest to my folks and all the other neighbors and the metal roof was fence high. I finally got back to sleep when they set off another pack at 10:15PM. I would get all upset and debate going over there, but then eventually talk myself out of it and get back to sleep. But the same thing at 11:15PM, 12:15AM, and 1:15AM. After the pack at 1:15AM I did not calm back down. I remember my heart pounding out of my chest. I thought about those pit bulls and my mom, and about all the little kids in the neighborhood that the pit bulls might go off on. The people moving in had two little kids on top of that. And it wasn't fair to sell them the house knowing all these problems they would face... . I went out to deal with the situation and passed the large garbage cans on the side of the house on my way. Then I had a brilliant idea. I hefted the full garbage can up over the fence, shaking the contents out into the biker party. About 2 seconds later, their great leader, my dad's neighbor, jumped over the fence. I did not win that battle (ouch), but I won the war. They stopped letting their pit bulls out off leash, and they stopped having those parties. The people that bought the house never had to deal with any of that. I should add that while the inside of my mouth was a mess, and my new Levi's were shredded by the rose bushes we were amongst, there were no visible marks on me while that biker had a mouse under his eye. So I went in looking better and came out looking better, but mostly I stopped them from abusing the neighborhood that I had grown up in.