Replies to post #4226 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[john1045]

The poster is welcome to his own personal thoughts on why NWBO approach is better or worse. I respectfully and personally do not agree with that poster on targeting one antigen against cancer.

In all of my own due diligence I believe the DCVax approach using all of the antigens and biomarkers of the tumor will be most successful in the fight against both operable and inoperable solid tumor cancers.

We will find out soon enough with 1st interim results due any day as well as an update DCVax-Direct. Thank you.

[Doktornolittle]

More Antigens Better?

In addition to the synthetic vs natural antigen issue, there is the issue that it might not be reasonable to assume what the antigens are going to be. Clearly the scientist that developed ICT-107 believed they could make some assumptions about what antigens would be present, but even they believed that ICT-107 was not going to be effective for everyone.

More Antigens Better?

I want to try to logic through this:

1 Antigen, 10M DC's:
You had better pick the most common antigen.

Tumor Lysate, 10M DC's:
Assuming the cell mechanism for presenting internal proteins on the outer cell membrane does not discriminate, and or that the lysing process generates the same population/distribution; The most common antigen will be targeted by the most DC's. DC's for all antigens will be generated in proportion to how common the antigens are.

In Filter theory, the Wiener–Hopf equation shows that the best signal to noise you can get from a "noise filter" is by shaping the pass-band proportional to the signal to noise over that spectrum.

It's a little bit of a stretch... but I think it might be a meaningful analog. The same principals might say that the best you can do statistically in programming DC's is to program them in proportion to the antigen population. That is what a tumor lysate would do. That is what DCVax-L does, (given the two aforementioned assumptions).

Besides... Linda Lau apparently thought it was the best way to go or she would not have joined the team... for what that is worth.

[flipper44]

Ou,


I finally had a chance to review that poster's comments from the other site.

The poster states that he could not find the preparation process for DCVAX-L. Well that is ridiculous.
It is listed in meticulous detail in these 2 studies. See materials and methods.

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/11/15/5515.long

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/17/6/1603.full

This is just the beginning of the poster's failure to study DCVAX.

He also makes the wrong assumption that the enhanced dendritic cells in DCVAX do not amp up the immune response. Again, this is a ridiculous notion. The enhanced dendritic cells used in DCVAX-L amp up the effective expression to B-cells and T-cells. These cells are then able to bolster a prolific response against the tumor with antibodies as well as t-cells. The DCs also invoke other parts of the innate and adaptive immune system. (Ultimately, we expect, DCVax-Direct will beef up this effective response 10 fold, IMO, and any concerns regarding TH1 v. Th2 (thus far unfounded) are also addressed with IL-12 maturation).

His solution? Each pharmaceutical company should use the "one protein one antigen approach."

Give me a break. This is the ultimate wet dream for big pharma. In other words he is effectively suggesting (perhaps unintentionally) that cancer treatment companies share the wealth and never cure cancer. His solution is to let each company find their little subgroup to treat with a very specific one-antigen / one-protein related drug, and thus let the cancer ultimately escape. Again, perhaps unintentionally, his solution will keep cancer and the cancer growth industry alive indefinitely. IMO

He simply never bothered to take the time to study DCVAX-L technology.