One of those responses I really liked in regards to one of the biggest BS articles I have ever read, if I may, from papa2358
'Terrible article.
Not actionable evidence, in light of the fact that the author failed to say why, up to this point, dendritic cell vaccines have failed.
That reason is specifically two-fold: one, the dendritic cell vaccines up to this point have only allowed the dendritic cells to look at a finite number of markers on the tumor, only allowing the immune system to attack cells that outwardly show those markers. two, the treatments, for the most part, have used either synthetic dendritic cells (not the patients’ own) or they have not used boosters to increase the potency, or number of dendritic cells, that are created in the lab for the treatment.
NWBO’s treatement attempts to correct both of these deficiencies by using the patient’s own dendritic cells and boosters to increase the number of dendritic cells that are in the treatment. By using the boosters and the patient’s own cells, the number of tumor markers that are identified by the dendritic cells is greatly increased. That explains the reason why the Phase II results mimicked the Phase I trials, and the Phase I trials mimicked the animal trials used to get the Phase I trial approved.
The results are yet to be released, but since this treatment is completely different from any other that has been tried, and 10 years of scientific work were used, going on a different path than most other researchers were going using dendritic cell approaches, it’s premature at best to discount the possibilities of this treatment and unethical at worst to not state the facts that have been presented in my comment.
There are other treatments out there. Just understand this: the same scientists when starting treatments on animals for non-operable tumors were able to not only use this treatment to eradicate the tumor in the animal, but in mice were able to make the immune system remember the cells and kill them later when they were re-introduced into the mice. That has never been done, for any cancer treatment, in the history of medical research. I’d find it hard to discount these scientists and their approach so readily when they have some serious accomplishments on their resumes. I’m also not saying that they are any closer than any other study to providing a better treatment option; I’m merely saying that their track record gives them the benefit of the doubt in my opinion.
Don’t spread the Hatorade on a specific treatment because you are touting the stock of a company whose treatment method is different. Your conclusions are lacking evidence to back them up, and your analysis is the equivalent of saying that just because an assembly-line manufactured Ford is made badly that all other cars, by any other manufacturer, are made badly because they are all cars manufactured on assembly lines. That’s really absurd when you think about it.'
