InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 276
Posts 32701
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/14/2013

Re: ou71764 post# 3136

Tuesday, 12/31/2013 1:10:29 PM

Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:10:29 PM

Post# of 700559
I posted this a couple days ago. It is the Triozzi study. In my view it sent NWBO and probably a few other companies into dark caves for a number of years to take up the challenge he incorporated in his conclusion. Personally, I find it almost incomprehensible Triozzi would refrain from moving forward immediately with such a powerful therapy in favor of making it more potent. To me it would make sense to move forward with the therapy he used, and concurrently work on more potent dendritic cells. Instead, he basically said…"I just had the most astounding results on GBM ever, but let's wait and think about it. Let's step back to understand it. Let's go into sequestration to develop it further."

I do not know Triozzi, so I do not want to cast either dispersions or accolades. I can only think of a few reasons he held off -- beyond what he mentioned. 1. Develop a process that will provide patent protection. (This sounds cynical, but maybe this is not as insensitive as it sounds.) 2. Make certain that such an amazing technology does not get washed away from mankind as a result of poor initial results on a slightly inferior inversion. In other words, even though he had great results on a small scale, he knows the rigors of three trial phases, and he did not want the first in-vivo loaded dendritic therapy to fail because it might deter or stop any further efforts.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142(20001215)89:12%3C2646::AID-CNCR18%3E3.0.CO%3B2-A/full
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent NWBO News