Replies to post #188576 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

PPHM

considering the third party in the messy P2 trial acknowledged that one of their employees switched placebo and drug doses, as is on record in the ongoing lawsuit filings, give the clinical tirals critique a rest.

and just by chance it created a strong positive result? Not likely.

if the science backs it up, why is it laughable? PPHM acknowledged years ago they didn't fully understand the MOA, and now they do. they were being intellectually honest, which some here are not.

Given that almost everything in the human body can be strongly influenced by the immune system - from diabetes to cancer to renal failure to CHF - then lucky them. They've found the elixir of life.

More seriously, it would significantly surprise me if it DIDN'T have some effect on the immune system. It is an antibody and it is chimeric. And that is what makes it a great gravy train - because most disease modalities are complex enough that if you just look at enough different components of enough different models you'll find something positive. Checkpoint? Yep. ...

When PPHM states what SPECIFICALLY they are looking for in disease x, biomarkers y before they run the experiment then it is real science. Until then it has more resemblance to alchemy than science since science is clear hypothesis then test.

[jq1234]

>> discussing current verified clinical discoveries.

Verified? LOL! You mean Bavi in preclinical melanoma models more effective than anti-CTLA4?

http://www.peregrineinc.com/images/stories/pdfs/sitc_2014_m_ctla4_bf_pphm_1961.pdf

Bavi had very little single agent activity in clinic, unlike anti-CTLA4. So, you should know what those preclinical models worth!