InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

masshysteria

01/29/16 8:15 AM

#250762 RE: asmarterwookie #250759

Great question Wook and one I am curious about myself.

Would love to hear some thoughtful answers, so anyone with relevant information please chime in to address Wook's Q.

In the meantime - just a sample scientific article associating TIM family of genes as PS receptors.

NCBI Article on TIM genes

Best,

MH
icon url

Protector

01/29/16 8:28 AM

#250767 RE: asmarterwookie #250759

wook, there are a lot of things you cannot patent. But PPHM patented a molecule (Bavituximab) which is not a synthetic version of one that already existed in nature (e.g. in our body).

Bavi is a new molecule.

And PPHM patented a molecule that binds to the PS site and not to the PS-receptor.

CEO King said: We don't own the PS domain. That is what he meant. They do hold the binding to PS, but others have molecules for specific bindings to PS receptors on certain cell types.

As massH explain in his post, better to bind something to PS (so that PS can't bind with any PS-receptor AT ALL, no matter on what cell) then trying to bind something to all these receptors the keep PS from binding with them.

And it is clear now (by the tons of research that has surfaced the last months - of which much was posted here) the PS ALWAYS carries the same generic message : Leave me alone, don't intervene, I am in a normal apoptic cycle.

That is why PS must be blocked for ALL receptors so that ALL act in concert. Probably, but that is SPECULATION with a headache, that is why Bavituximab works so well. And I am sure that with adapted dosing it can work even better.