Flipper,
I would be interested in hearing your opinion of this post by "Justice and Equality" on the ADXS message board on Yahoo. He writes:
"In my rebuttal to Pearson, I described how ADXS's LmLLO does multiple things. LmLLO achieves what DC vaccines do in-situ --- yet does NOT require leukapheresis (extraction) of patient's White Blood Cells.
Autologous DC vaccines (like NWBO, PBMD) require the patient to be hooked up to a leukapheresis machine to extract white cells. These are filtered for DCs. These DCs are "taught" in the lab to recognize a target antigen. In the case of PBMD, it is Mucin-1. In the case of NWBO, surgical removal of the tumor is needed. Part of the tumor is processed and used to train the DCs.
LmLLO is superior to DC vaccines. LmLLO addresses multiple aspects of the complex immune system, including:
1) Supplying "danger signals" (PAMP) to strongly activate the entire immune system - both innate and adaptive arms
2) Softening the highly immunosuppressive TME (tumor micro-environment) to allow immune cells to infiltrate.
LmLLO is MUCH easier make, administer, scale worldwide (no need complex leukapheresis, shipping, lab processing of the patient's white cells), YET it is more "powerful" in efficacy.
I have written on more than one occasion that vaccines in general (including DC vaccines) tend to have "mild" efficacy. It is rare for a vaccine to demonstrate shrinkage of established tumors, let alone COMPLETE regression. Our India trial got GOG excited because it achieved many PRs and some CRs by itself.
In contrast, NWBO and PBMD are administered WITH surgery. Cutting out the main tumor + DC vaccine to wipe out remnant microscopic cells improves overall survival.
Now, LmLLO is being pushed to earlier line. It will likely extend overall survival to a much greater degree than a DC vaccine."
I am sure that many of us would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the comparisons. With many thanks in advance for all the hard work that you put into this message board.
