GJH, thanks for sharing your insights on this board. If I am observing the gist of your recent science focused messages correctly, you are calling out how there can be more therapeutic value potential for anti-PS agents when working in tandem with substances like statins, that can make the "inside out" PS sites more accessible for Bavi family attachment, which in turn, can assist the bodies own anti-tumor immune response effectiveness. You are also suggesting that this sort of "helper" mechanism from other substances may show itself to be an essential part of the Bavi family PS or ES targeting agents aiding a therapeutic response (I don't understand why the helper role is necessary for effective therapeutic response as you suggested when it comes to current trials exhibiting a stat sig directional response without the helpers being present, though). The bioscience here is getting a bit complex for this chemical engineer, so I would appreciate it if you could provide a simple affirmation or correction of what I am trying to interpret from your posts.
Something I didn't see you address yet (I am still scanning through a backlog of a large number of unread posts) is the biomarking/tumor labeling benefit prospects being examined as part of PPHM tech research. This biomarking for imaging and simple categorization of tumor types (I recall not all tumors are marked as well as others based on earlier posts by others) was discussed on this board as being a prospectively market valuable offshoot from Bavi research that could generate revenue for PPHM fairly short term (maybe only a year or two out). Do you see the tumor marking value as warranting further research pursuit, distinct from Bavi family/betabody therapeutic value research?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
