First of all, that post was not a response to you Hyperopia, because unless you have multiple ID's, you're not typically the person posting those claims irresponsibly, that you know the current version or the future version will have all of those variations. You make broad patent claims and prospective ones based on where your research might go, to ensure you have room to grow. But those claims are not necessarily the current version of DCVax-L. BCG I actually believe is in there. Poly-ICLC is getting results as an IM injection, not as part of the DCVax-L formula. If that were the case, they'd not need to have that separate injection at UCLA in all of their trials.
The fact is, a patent like the one you just quoted, lists all kinds of possibilities, but DCVax-L in its trials and generally will have only one formulation. Secondly, the formulations will be consistent over the course of a trial, not constantly changing. The drug is not based on every possibility listed in any given patent. Secondly, I referenced the patent that the OTHER PERSON who was referenced gave but also with the knowledge that patent claims are often broader and prospective, while the drug in the current trial, is not the version, for instances, reflected in the expectations for the combination patent. I never said that Poly-ICLC combinations are not in any patents, because we know it is and we know the company references it just like it references BCG, the grandaddy of cancer vaccine concoctions.
The other person has said there are 2 versions of DCVax-L, which falls directly into the nonsense promoted by shorts.
However, no one argues that the amazing results with poly-ICLC have come in all of the trials with just DCVax-L. They come in the trials with Poly-ICLC as an ADJUVANT therapy using a separate IM injection. That is because it is not already in DCVax-L. And the fact is, person's claiming they have the actual formula for DCVax-L's current maturation factors, not just making claims about the patent, are showing a lack of understanding. None of us know what is in the actual, current mix, because that is a trade secret known to the company and the regulator, but not public information. Further, if just throwing in the poly-ICLC into the DCVax-L mix, randomly, over the course of the trial, worked, and if that were the case, it would not be necessary to have separate trials or to have it listed as an IM injection in those research papers about those trials.
Additionally, Poly-ICLC is in fact a drug made by another company. NWBO doesn't make it. There is no question that the company could choose to do a later version of a vaccine, with all kinds of improvements and combinations, of every stripe across various patents. No one said that can't happen either. But the wild speculation 1) that there is a version 2 of the vaccine, 2) that the current one already incorporates poly-iclc, so they don't need to do the IM injection, etc., etc., those are wildly speculative claims without basis.
And if you are in fact posting these wild claims under other ID's and then maintaining the otherwise cool and collected hyperopia, until this post, well, then thanks for the revelation.
My question for you, Hyperopia, is, are you claiming to have the actual formula for DCVax-L since its inception and initial trials? Really?
And are you claiming that upon approval of DCVax-L, as it is currently, there would be no need for any off-label prescription of poly-iclc, because it is already in DCVax-L, and has the same impact as the current UCLA combination trial? Is that your claim? I don't think so.
As for post approval, future formulations of new versions of DCVax-L, of course they can do all kinds of amazing things. They could add in specific antigens they want in every batch, regardless of whether a patient's tumor initially had such antigens. They could seek a manufacturer of an off-patent keytruda at some future date and toss some of that in, and once it's off patent, they could do so regardless of whether the combination patent has been approved. And sure, they can throw in poly-iclc as an adjuvant, directly into the vaccine, as that is typically how adjuvants are used with vaccines, though usually they are not a separate biologic like poly-iclc and these other treatments, which operate more like combinations and have a therapeutic impact beyond just the dendritic cells in DCVax-L.
So yes, there is no current evidence that it is in DCVax-L, or that the company won't want patients to get poly-iclc as an adjuvant IM injection because, "it's already in there". That's clearly not the case.
