Thanks for the advice ATLnsider. I read some of bio’s responses to you on this subject a couple years ago, which in my view, seemed rather dismissive and condescending. There certainly is some basis to the theory of using poly I:C in the manufacturing process of DCVax-Direct at least, and potentially even for DCVax-L down the road.
I agree that poly I:C was not used as an activation agent in the first clinical trial with DCVax-Direct, (it was BCG and IFNy). However, I think many other agents, including poly I:C, were also studied by Northwest Bio in earlier, pre-clinical work with Direct. I speculate that because of the UCLA studies, and the impressive results seen with poly-ICLC in combination with DCVax-L, and a potential in-licensing agreement with Oncovir, that poly I:C could be further studied as a activation/maturation agent in the manufacturing process for DCVax-Direct going forward. As I said in my previous post to you, using poly-ICLC in the manufacturing process for DCVax-L is far more difficult due to the culturing method used for DCVax-L, but I think it’s at least potentially possible. I do agree with you that the combination of DCVax-L and poly-ICLC is the plan going forward for all current and future studies of DCVax-L, but I think it will be administered as separate injections for now.
Some people are unwilling to go out on a limb and potentially be wrong because they always have to be right, so I appreciate reading your (and other’s) reasonable speculation and research that may be out of the box, even if it’s not always correct. I also respect bio and agree with most of his posts, and I appreciate his arguments against the naysayer’s false claims over the years, which have since been proven false and irrelevant as clinical trial results were published, and the marketing application finally submitted. I generally don’t put longs on ignore, but simply don’t read their posts, and I rarely read his posts these days, or reply to him, but that post caught my attention.
