Replies to post #10964 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Doktornolittle]

Terry:

You weren't talking to me, but your post about the importance of the systemic response to kill the mets reminded me of something I had wanted to say about the Direct data.

I am hoping that the direct data ultimately shows that the smaller the un-injected tumor is, the greater the damage. Being close to the injected tumor is good, but for mets the same distance away from the injected tumor, does smaller mean more vulnerable? If so; If the data shows that to be true; then it would seem reasonable to project that very tiny mets would be vulnerable at great distances. And most mets are probably very tiny in the beginning.

A comment on the use of the word mets for metastases. All the abbreviations and acronyms in this space are a problem for me. But I love the term "mets". I vote for officially replacing the word metastases with the word "mets". Someone should introduce that bill in congress.

[Pyrrhonian]

Hey Terry, of course I agree that mets kill but only because tumors do. It's like saying seeds bring fruit. Of course, that may be true, but not without plants. Tumors cause eventual organ shut down (or in non-tumor blood cancers, complete impairment of proper blood cell production), not mets. If you cannot kill the seeds, but you can kill the plants, and can do so before those seeds you cannot kill can become plants of their own, you have successfully prevented your field from being overrun with the undesirable plants (weeds). But, it seems Direct may also have seed killing properties.

What I'm really unsure of is the extent these former tumors can be dissolved and cleared, and if they leave any scarring which could impair organ function in and of itself. In that case I suppose at some point you simply could not inject a patient's tumors anymore. Though I imagine that would take quite a while...