News Focus
News Focus
icon url

skitahoe

10/06/24 12:19 AM

#724264 RE: dstock07734 #724262

Dstock, I don't know that 2 gm. is all that's needed to create a full batch of the vaccine, but if true, shouldn't it be possible to remove that much without surgery.

This would bring up the question, would treatment be equally effective, or even better, with a 2 gm sample of the tumor, and the right additional therapeutics added, or is it best to remove all the tumor that it's possible to remove.

Common logic might say take it all, but recovery from massive surgery might be tougher on the patient than use of a vaccine and other therapeutics that truly can eliminate the tumor from within.

I cannot say we're there, but over time I believe it's the direction we will be taking as we discover what can get the job done in that manner. Hopefully our vaccine will continue to be a part of the process in many forms of cancer.

Gary

icon url

Horseb4CarT

10/06/24 3:40 PM

#724371 RE: dstock07734 #724262

The biggest takeaway I have regarding DCVax Direct is that LP and others at nwbo clearly stated that Direct is being taken out of “dormant on the shelf mode” and are going to actively pursue it in some manner again!!!

This is important because with the additional insights gained over the last five years, including DCVax modus of action and deeper knowledge of tumor micro environment and cancer’s mechanisms to evade being destroyed, the decision to reactivate Direct implies both positive “science” and timing (opportunity) factors being more “promising” enough to allocate efforts and (somebody’s) funding to the renewed Direct efforts!!!
icon url

biosectinvestor

10/06/24 7:32 PM

#724387 RE: dstock07734 #724262

It’s distraction. That’s what they do… you’re about to get approved for something and they are problematizing some other thing…