Roche Holding Ltd (RHHBY)

[biopharm]

Unfortunately... I don't think it will be running far. A new cancer drug will be needed.... and not PD-L1.

PD-1 (Bristol Myers Squibb) or PD-L1... are no comparison to Bavituximab, Peregrine Pharmaceuticals lead drug candidate. I'd like to hear ones reasoning though... always good to know the competition

GoodJohnHunting over on the Peregrine Board ... and others have discussed this and at ACSO... this is a little glimpse that will be coming on why Bavituximab is better than PD-1 ... or PD-L1.

I've discussed in the past something called "notch signalling", and its critical role in determination of M1 versus M2 polarization. The beauty of Bavituximab, is its influence or activation within the microenvironment that govern the processes of M1, M2 polarization. What's even more mind boggling is that there is clear evidence of active polarization from M2 to M1 state via the increased presence of IL12 (tumoricidal effect), with Bavituximab administration. As you may recall, this was mentioned as a signaling chemical, and, as I summized along with Nitric Oxide.

I will say this, when someone discovers the mechanisms governing macrophage polarization, and harness what Bavituximab claims to do, they will undoubtedly be adorned with Nobel's Prize in Medicine.

Now tell me how PD-1, PD-L1 compares to Bavituximab? There is no comparison, in my opinion.

Thanks to GJH for this explanation... more and more people can understand the differences between PD-1, PD-L1... vs Bavituximab.

Its more like the debate on who can invent the better wheel.... the problem is Peregrine has the IP and global rights on the wheel itself ... the rest are those simply trying to recreate it and a bumpy road it will be.

GLTA!