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 get the metaphor and don’t necessarily disagree. It didn’t take too long in my initial cancer research to come to the conclusion that excess sugar is poison. I was very ignorant about health in general and regularly ate candy bars and drank soft drinks. I stopped essentially cold turkey once I made the connection.
Eventually extended that to most high glycemic foods.
I feel very confident regarding the negative effects of sugar and high glycemic foods. Unfortunately, the research on other aspects of diet aren’t as clear and the research on keto is still in early stages. It’s promising but I’d like to see more clarity there.
The issue is that research on fats is complex and highly contaminated by past crappy work. If you cut carbs, you need to increase fat. The question is which ones, and how to integrate it into a sustainable diet. (Re protein — moderation is key since it can be converted to glucose and excess protein triggers mTOR — not a good idea with regard to cancer).
No references — JMO.
The possibilities presented by ketogenic diet for cancer was one of the “nuggets” I was thinking about but did not mention. It’s a big topic and worthy of book length discussion (have 5 of them on the topic, lol). The jury is still out on keto diet for cancer as far as my thinking goes though it is very intriguing.
Diet and cancer isn’t a straightforward topic though very important. Best to consult with an integrative oncologist and continue to learn as much as possible — depending on ones motivation or drive.
Unfortunately, most oncologists are know nothings on the topic.
Dr Jason Fung is a great recommendation. His book “The Complete Guide to Fasting: Heal Your Body Through Intermittent, Alternate-Day, and Extended Fasting” is one of the best health related books I’ve read. A real eye-opener. Intermittent fasting in particular is a great approach to improved health, in that it is relatively easy to integrate into one’s life. I bought several copies of the book and gave them to people closest to me who I felt would be open to new approaches. They now use intermittent fasting (eat your daily calories in a compressed window to avoid extending insulin spikes through a long range of your day as well giving your body a nice break at night for recovery/repair).
He’s treated roughly a thousand patients for obesity and diabetes and has great success with the approach. Excellent patient stories in the book, as well as a very clear, mid-level discussion of the science behind it which I found convincing. The basic biological impacts are mapped out well but I found the arguments from evolution to be the most fascinating. (That is, how did Grog survive so well when his food supply was so variable and out of his control.)
I ended up trying an extended fast, just to see how I felt and if it matched his day-by-day description. To my great surprise, I ended up fasting for 5 days (was ready to bail out at the first sign of any issue or real discomfort). The evolution of my experience over those days matched almost exactly what he described. The one deviation was on day 4, when human growth hormone levels rise significantly to preserve muscle mass. I engaged in high intensity interval exercises (which I had been doing regularly for the preceding 6 months) and felt I was only at 80% of my capacity. In theory, I should have been unaffected because of generally increased adrenaline levels (that allow Grog to hunt for food effectively). I could have been holding back because I semi-consciously didn’t believe I could exercise after 4 days of no food at 100%.
I was no doubt more open to fasting than I would have otherwise been because of earlier research I had come across with regard to cancer treatments and caloric restriction (related but not the same as fasting) back in the early 2000’s. The data were very suggestive of positive impact but I never mentioned it to anyone I was consulting with because it was very early research and too far outside the paradigm to be considered for even a second. I was sure they would have looked at me as if I had a third eye and trying to explain the rationale was too involved when someone keeps staring at your third eye. However, I thought it was worthwhile then based on my understanding of cancer and would have tried to integrate it somehow if I had a cancer diagnosis.
Some ideas are too far ahead of the times.
Time has moved on. I just did a very quick google search. Here’s a couple of articles from UCSF and Medical News Today on insulin effects (especially important in cancer because of the Insulin-like growth factor receptor pathways that promote so many cancers), autophagy, immune system enhancement and amelioration of chemo side effects. There’s a lot more related to cancer impacts if you start digging around the area. Pay dirt, that seems to have a high number of nuggets.
https://osher.ucsf.edu/patient-care/integrative-medicine-resources/cancer-and-nutrition/faq/cancer-and-fasting-calorie-restriction
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324169.php
There’s also a lot more to the fasting in general than I touched on. Dr Fung’s book is a great place to start.
Obviously, one should only do stuff like this in consultation with medical professionals. This is not just a blanket CYA statement. Everyone’s health situation is unique and when it comes to cancer, looking at it through a single lens is suboptimal, to say the least.
As Dubya once said, “I don’t do nuance.”
Regarding trusting Wikipedia — Let’s just say it’s fine for a high school history level of understanding of the world. I’m aware of instances in which well-sourced edits to controversial topics have been repeatedly deleted by the moderators.
Rule of thumb — If something is really important to oneself, then digging beyond conventionally accepted understanding is wise if one has the time and resources.
Great example! We should all be aware of their patterns of behavior. Much more to learn.
I don’t just Wikipedia either, but for different reasons, lol
Just as a general knowledge thingy, worth knowing about— kind of like the basement of the Web from which many viral things spring:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan
maybe a separate board called “The Happy Hour Lounge.” Or is that 4chan?
Interesting questions but a little loaded for my taste.
Please share your proof of fraud. I would find that most damning. The other two could be debated endlessly as to interpretation.
Lol, though it can work to one’s advantage if one has the spare cash and balls. Of course the question of how low is low comes into play.
Was your post meant as a reply to me? Seems like a non sequitur.
Thanks for trying to bring me up to date on the latest terminology— sometimes I can be so old school. I hear adjuvants like CBD Oil and THC work wonders.
BTW, I have no idea where Dave is.
JRIII, finally had time to spend here and was going to reply to your message but poof! It’s gone.
In any case, feel free to add to your lexicon. Appreciate your sense of humor wrt to the post.
BTW, thanks for the immune boost — i LMAO!
And good for the microbiome.
What’s the German word for taking pleasure in the pain of a group of people, to which one also happens to belong? Schadenfreudelebensmude?
BTW, I find your kam8, suku gag to be funny, though I’m know I’m not supposed to because groupthink.
Assessment of Blood Tumor Mutational Burden as a Biomarker for Immunotherapy in NSCLC With Use of a Cancer Gene Panel
The authors of this study of two independent cohorts of patients with advanced NSCLC found that the cancer gene panel NCC-GP150 was cost-effective, with a satisfactory performance, for estimation of tumor mutational burden. The blood tumor mutational burden estimated by NCC-GP150 correlated well with the tissue tumor mutational burden calculated by whole-exome sequencing, and a blood tumor mutational burden of ≥6 was positively associated with clinical benefits of anti–PD-1 and anti–PD-L1 therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.
Blood tumor mutational burden measured by NCC-GP150 is a potential biomarker to identify patients with NSCLC who could benefit from anti–PD-1 and anti–PD-L1 therapy.
https://www.practiceupdate.com/c/80437/2/1/
Thanks Senti! Looks like a lot of worthwhile info I need to read through. Much appreciated!
The Inactive Ingredients in Pills Can Cause Side Effects, Too
https://gizmodo.com/the-inactive-ingredients-in-pills-can-cause-side-effect-1833271751
The annoying, even life-threatening, side effects of a medication may not actually be caused by the drug itself, explains a new study out Wednesday. Sometimes, the stuff used to make pills go down easier—the inactive ingredients—could trigger a person’s allergies or intolerances.
Doctors have occasionally spotted cases of allergy brought on by a drug’s inactive ingredients, which can include dyes, sugars, and even foods. But according to study author Carlo Traverso, a gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital as well as an assistant professor in MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering, there hasn’t been a large study that’s tried to gauge how much of a risk these ingredients could pose
So Traverso and his team decided to review the ingredients behind some of the most commonly prescribed drugs taken orally in the U.S. These drugs included simvastatin, a cholesterol-lowering medication; gabapentin, an anti-seizure drug also used to treat nerve pain; and amoxicillin, a widely used antibiotic. They also looked through the medical literature for cases of people who might have gotten sick from those filler ingredients.
Not surprisingly, they found that inactive ingredients made up the bulk of most drugs—on average, around 75 percent of a drug’s mass. They also found cases of medication-related allergy or intolerance linked to 38 of these ingredients, most notably things like peanut oil, lactose, or glucose. And nearly all of the drugs they reviewed, at least in certain formulations, contained at least one of these possible allergens or irritants.
The study’s findings, published in Science Translational Medicine, are meant to raise awareness more than anything else. And there are still a lot of unanswered questions. For one, we don’t know how often these ingredients are sickening people. On an individual basis, the risk would depend heavily on the amount of a triggering ingredient in that pill, the severity of a person’s hypersensitivity, and how many drugs that person is taking
For a lot of these [ingredients], it’s probably low enough to say no,” Traverso told Gizmodo. “But for someone with a severe lactose intolerance and who’s taking a large number of medications, for example, it very well could be enough to cause serious symptoms.”
We do know that reported allergic reactions to medications, which happen almost instantaneously, are rare. But Traverso and his team point out that many more people report delayed reactions to foods and other triggers, such as lactose intolerance. And while labels and doctors do explicitly warn patients about allergic triggers like peanut in their drugs, we rarely get told up front about these other ingredients, which are in lot of drugs. More than half of the drugs studied, the authors noted, contained at least one FODMAP, a group of sugars and carbs that have been linked to episodes of irritable bowel syndrome and other digestive problems.
Right now, patients can look up a drug’s ingredients in the materials provided by a pharmacy alongside the drug. And the publicly available Pillbox database, run by the federal government, contains similar information on more than 40,000 formulations of orally taken drugs. But neither tells people the actual quantity of these ingredients, Traverso noted.
He hopes his team’s work will inspire efforts to create more detailed databases and labeling, as well as to pressure pharmaceutical companies to develop more alternative formulations of their drugs. Research should also focus on figuring out how often people are actually getting sick from inactive ingredients, particularly in groups like the elderly (who often take more than one drug at a time). And in the near future, the team plans to unveil a tool that will let people more easily learn about the ingredients in their drugs.
“We’re not saying that everyone should stop taking these medications,” he said. “But people with an allergy or intolerance should definitely have the opportunity to find out if they have to worry about certain medications.”
Wow — the fraud seems somewhat constant in the small cap biotech world. I wonder if she was really just free lancing. Seeing all the 2 and 2’a lying around, that seems unlikely.
Thanks Senti— that article is interesting in its own right. Much appreciated!
Tryn, I’ve thought about your question a couple of different ways and have come to find it somewhat fascinating — what can I say, I’m easily entertained.
However, in the end, it’s such a hypothetical question with so much uncertainty built into it (if I try to tie it back to reality as I understand it) that I find the exercise to be pointless in terms of an actual answer like $X billion. I guess that’s a reflection of my personality — others might be content with a seemingly solid number made of I don’t know what, since I couldn’t come up with anything.
Sorry, I actually tried.
In any case, for me the key factor is DCVax-L phase 3 trial results and approval. If that goes well, I will be sitting on the proverbial beach and will have more time and data to work with to figure out how much extra cash Direct is going to bring into the coffers. Until then, I am content not to count my chickens until they are hatched.
Regarding the fanciful but much to be desired 30 Trillion dollar valuation. You said:
Agree that this is a rare opportunity. As is obvious, immune-based therapies are going to be key to cancer treatment going forward. If I had to pick a single approach, DC cells are most likely going to take one the farthest. LL and crew seem to have something that works well enough to be a game changer. And Direct is the killer app — inoperable tumors are ultimately a dragon that has to be slain. It has years of optimization ahead of it.
RE: CogDiss — a little goes a long way my family tells me.
Thanks Flip!
Appreciate your patience — I now remember you recently posted this. I’ll blame it on a combination of age, distraction due to multiple new projects going on and the volume of posts on the board. Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Shkreli is quite the sociopath. Thanks for sharing the link — wasn’t aware of this particular sordidness.
That would be great if it works out that way! Confoundment is one of my biggest concerns since “everyone is living longer.”
Do you happen to have the link handy to the prior trial results showing the impact of progression on DCVax?
If the best case scenario you lay out comes to pass, then yes, we could have an Apple on our hands as you say, or Amgen as I tend to think of it.
But how often do best case scenarios play out?
I’ll leave it at that, other than to say I can imagine a couple of possibilities that might put a ding in our dream. Realistic valuations would try to take them into account.
The hyperbolic prediction that triggered this thread was .33 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10, in the 5 days after release of data. Not sure what happens on the first of many approvals.
At 500 million shares, that’s a $15 TRILLION dollar market cap. But that was an underestimate, because all the options and warrants will be exercised after the first day. So $30 trillion.
The US economy is just over $20 trillion.
As they say in Washington, a trillion here, a trillion there, and after a while you’re talking real money.
I guess the headlines we’re overlooking are “Trump Elected to Second Term as Economy Vaults into Orbit!” and “LP Becomes First Female VP!”
Serious question — do you think that it is wise to enable absurd assertions like 30T valuations?
BTW, I’m long NWBO since roughly 2011, and have invested double my normal max position size in NWBO. It is actually triple in size because of the recent run up. Last purchases were in November and December. I’m actually so bullish on NWBO that I’m breaking my money management rules.
I wonder why I don’t trust “experts”.
A 15 trillion dollar valuation too high for you?
That’s with a “T” - no mistake on the letter, lol
Yep, $33,300 a share sounds about right.
I’m going to need a bigger bank account!
My perspective on Wick’s interview seems to be somewhat of a minority opinion based on past posts I’ve read (they may have been mostly over at the wolf’s den), though I appreciate the additional info on his potential COIs and competing vaccine. They don’t seem to have affected his comments in the interview, IMO.
It’s kind of a big nothing burger, as the old saying goes.
I believe he felt discomfort discussing trial results that are still blinded (therefore not ready for analysis) and published in a less than stellar journal (he really winces here or maybe it was indigestion), apparently without peer-review. For a scientist, this is a reasonable and, and I believe, correct perspective. Thus, he limited himself to what he could say without guess work, connecting dots and filling in blanks. It’s safe, it’s feasible — show us the unblinded data already!
I don’t hold this particular interview against him, though I suppose he could have diplomatically bowed out.
Stupp and Fine, on the other hand, when interviewed on the same topic, revealed themselves to be big...
Great find, Evaluate!
One of the references in the GBM study was for neoantigen-specific T-cell detection in an ovarian cancer patient using whole tumor lysate vaccine, without the additional neoantigen peptide priming used in the GBM study:
Never crossed my mind.
Not sure what you’re getting at.
He also brought up manufactured cellular immunotherapy in the same meeting:
Here’s the NCI meeting notes were data sharing was discussed: