Replies to post #19262 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[DoGood_DoWell]

I cannot say this with complete assurance of fact, but I believe that the regulatory restrictions of the Direct trial, being "first in man" necessitated only one site being injected. Trying two sites isn't necessarily indicative of systemic failure. Optimizing the positive immune response is likely a delicate balance, as Linda mentioned in her talk, that the immune system can be very toxic. They are just likely figuring out an optimal dosing strategy and starting slowly to satisfy regulators.

[flipper44]

Please see post 19257.

Your basis for concluding there is a weak systemic response arises from distal tumor non-evidence. Your basis for concluding that any distal tumor response would be reported by NWBO at this stage in the trial is drawn from your assumption that NWBO would move "heaven and earth" (and apparently AF:) to report these findings, even though you choose to dismiss/ignore(?) those second stage findings necessarily take more time to develop within the immune system, and tumor load is already one of many noninvasive ways to gather whether systemic effects are potentially progressing.

We can agree that the findings are not definitive. We cannot judge any definitive strength or durability of any systemic response based upon the data to date. Determining strength of response should be next in line. To consider it "weak" ignores:

1. Tumor load stabilization and/or reduction within the patient population.
2. Apparent partial remission in the longest dosed patient(s).
3. Dendritic vaccine tumor killing stages (allowing for the overlapping systemic time delay).


How you can achieve scientific conclusions without reading scientific articles (offered by Foxhound and rejected by you) on the very topic you are drawing conclusions? Specifically your contention that,

In a nutshell, I am saying that any lack of systemic response observed in distal tumors cannot be attributed to the known high rate of cancer cell mutation.

(Additional Note: These two points you made appear to be in direct conflict with each other. Which one do you ascribe to?

but most eukaryotic (non-bacterial) DNA is so-called "junk" DNA which doesn't code for anything, so, yes, mutations in this DNA will not affect the cell.

I think you're failing to make a distinction between cancer mutation rate and the expression of that mutation. Any mutation initially is to the DNA in one cell. Usually, mutations, because they are random, kill the cell - it's not functional.)