InvestorsHub Logo

flipper44

03/03/21 12:32 PM

#359112 RE: hyperopia #358925

The trickle of Checkpoint inhibitor withdrawals in certain indications is definitely not a one-off for several BPs.

I think it does leave a gap, and agree with others this might intensify the need to utilize a safer and potentially more symbiotic therapy like autologous DCs.

Add to that rapid progression side effects from CIs and DCs are looking better and better.

Maybe then this explains why UCLA’s website specifically/currently lists “DCVax” as a promising immunotherapy but CIs in the same section does not mention “Keytruda,” nor is the latter referred to as promising.

Maybe it explains why the Combo rGBM trial uses a CI as a potential adjuvant to DCs, and not the other way around.

Maybe it even explains Perlmutter/Frazier getting out while the gettings good. They knew the status of those confirmatory trials when they announced their intent to leave.

Maybe it also puts into perspective LPs long stated theme that as these other (once) pillars of treatment fade away, forces are gravitating to autologous DCs.

danielboog2

03/03/21 2:10 PM

#359158 RE: hyperopia #358925

Thanks Hyperopia

Doc logic

03/03/21 3:54 PM

#359184 RE: hyperopia #358925

hyperopia,

The need for DCVax could not be more obvious than big pharma has made it! Best wishes.

biosectinvestor

03/03/21 5:17 PM

#359196 RE: hyperopia #358925

Very interesting Hyperopia! Thanks!

sentiment_stocks

03/03/21 6:33 PM

#359207 RE: hyperopia #358925

This is a rather fascinating review of the more relevant checkpoint inhibitor treatments, and how they are looking to lose some of that relevancy. As we've always said here, you need to add DCVax to the treatment plan. Finally, perhaps someone is listening.

Longfellow saw this coming a mile away.