Well said, and thanks for avoiding the phrase "balls deep." Anyway, just a few details I wanted to throw in:
The only thing more that we have is the date when 66 events was reached.
Actually, that date isn't public either - there was the announcement date, but remember that there is some squishy time (between minutes and weeks) at several stages between event 66 and the PR on the 10th. For example, between when the patient's progression became detectable and when it was actually detected, between then and when the trial coordinator got the update, between then and when the company was notified, between then and when they made the announcement.
This only supports your broader point about the information gaps both between reality and linda and between linda and the public.
I believe she was chief of the early trials, and possibly the current phase III trial
Yes, she is officially listed as the PI on this trial.
The difference is the number of antigens
That is an important difference, but it's not the only one. Remember, ICT-107 isn't pulsed with the actual complete antigen from the tumor and just getting six of them, it's using a synthetic antigenic peptide which generally looks like the antigen expressed in vivo. These proteins are large, complex, intricate structures, not atomic. That's why there are so many different kinds. While nobody has proven that this provides an inadequate presentation compared to autologous complete antigens, this inconsistency may be significant from the perspective of a single dendritic cell or the cells it trains. Microscopic differences are generally more visible to microscopic cells conducting microscopic processes than they are to the enormous creature standing over the microscope. There, now I've anthropomorphized them too.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
