NotSure2
5 hours ago
Lol, a judge would not be waiting for approval or not of a company before rendering his/her/zer/their etc... judgment.
The worrying part is this:
Since KG is now (always been, deep state establishment) "an ennemy" of Donald Trump, KG now falls into "allie" of the democrat machine. Lots of Judges, especially NY, DC are extremely corrupt.
Question is will they stop any lawfare agaisnt KG and friends for some favors...
(which is alrdy happening, Musk/Trump stock manipulation).
I kind of wish Trump didnt win the election in a way, since if he didnt win I am pretty sure they would have went after KG... (they do need to sacrifice some people once in a while...).
But since Trump won, KG has now become a stronger asset/friend if we can say. (always have been an allie but more for the Republican establisment/Neo Con etc..., now fully integrated with the Dem, so I dont think theyll prosecute him now)
Will see what happen. No wonder why the decision took so long (waiting for election results, then orders from up above).
The Danish Dude
5 hours ago
I have gone down the alley of dendritic cells and trying to look at alternatives for that time, for a dendritic cell vaccine, that in any way could align with the data in the clinical trial and the results and process covered in the article.
DocLee raises good questions. I have ping-ponged with AI regarding finding alternatives to DCvax-L, better matching the dc vaccine in question used. And have feeded AI with the patents for DCvax-L and the combo patent for DCvax-L and Keytruda (using IL-7).
The Case for DCVax-L Maturity and Evolution
The early phases of DCVax-L development (1996-2008) may have included experimental setups like the one described in the article, with techniques evolving over time:
NWBO might have adapted protocols as they refined the vaccine for broader clinical and regulatory acceptance.
The use of IL-7 in the 2016 study aligns with the 2014 patent on DCVax-L combined with IL-7. Linda Powers’ connection to Revimmune and the collaboration with Cytheris/Reimmune supports the likelihood of experimentation with IL-7-enhanced protocols.
The patent for combining DCVax-L and IL-7, coupled with Linda Powers' involvement with Revimmune and Mac Cheever's presence on NWBO's SAB, strongly suggests a connection between NWBO's work and the trial involving IL-7.
The timeline aligns: experimental work from the late 1990s to early 2000s could represent early iterations of what became DCVax-L.
While there are distinct differences in production methods between the 2016 study and DCVax-L as it is known today, these differences do not entirely rule out the possibility that the study represents an early developmental phase of DCVax-L. The shared use of tumor lysate, GM-CSF, and IL-4, alongside the patent collaboration involving IL-7, strengthens this hypothesis.
The evolution of DCVax-L's process over time suggests that what was tested in the 1996-2008 study could be a precursor or variant of the vaccine
AI itself suggested Vaccell (Japan), HSP-Loaded DC Vaccines and Allogeneic Tumor Lysate-Based DC Vaccines as potential alternatives, and refuting them all, when comparing with the process in said trial paper and article.
AI's argued "GM-CSF, IL-4, Interferon-?, and LPS" could suggest a custom protocol, but ...
Correlation with the Mentioned Study
The study describes GM-CSF, IL-4, Interferon-?, and LPS for dendritic cell maturation, which initially suggests a custom protocol. However:
The focus on autologous cells, tumor lysates, and broad antigen presentation fits DCVax-L's approach.
The described production protocol could reflect a slight variation tailored to the clinical trial but still built upon DCVax-L's patented foundations, particularly regarding antigen preparation and presentation.
I am keen on looking into other dc alternatives that could fit as a better alternative, but the argument, that the study start of said clinical trial, should in any way disqualify DCVax-L is just not true. The trial sponsor or investigator initially submitted the trial's protocol late 1999. Alton Boynton mentioned DCVax-L in an article in 2000. DCVax-L research began in the 1990s.
I will supper dstocks notion, that there are way more pointing to dcvax-l than there are information disqualifying it.
Key Factors Supporting DCVax-L
Broad Antigen Presentation:
DCVax-L's core design is based on broad antigen presentation using whole tumor lysate, which aligns perfectly with the trial description. Very few other DC vaccines emphasize this aspect, especially in 2016.
Autologous Tumor Lysates:
The freeze/thaw preparation of tumor lysate is a hallmark of DCVax-L. This level of standardization was uncommon in custom or experimental protocols of the era.
Dendritic Cell Maturation Process:
While the study describes a slight variation (e.g., GM-CSF, IL-4, Interferon-?, LPS), these differences could reflect specific trial modifications to explore alternative maturation agents or optimize immune responses for that setting.
Patented DCVax-L processes allow flexibility in maturation cocktails, as demonstrated in related patents, making this variation plausible.
Absence of HSP or Narrow Epitope Focus:
No mention of heat-shock proteins (HSP) or specific peptide epitopes rules out vaccines like HSP-loaded DCs or ICT-107, which focused on narrow antigen presentations.
Unique Cryopreservation Difference:
The trial's lack of cryopreservation appears logistical or trial-specific rather than a fundamental process change. DCVax-L is capable of same-day vaccine administration, even though cryopreservation is standard.
Patent Correlation with IL-7:
DCVax-L patents explicitly discuss IL-7 as an adjuvant or immunomodulatory agent to enhance dendritic cell vaccine efficacy. The trial's use of CYT107 (recombinant IL-7) fits this patented approach.
Counterpoints Addressed
Custom Protocol Possibility:
While the described maturation process (GM-CSF, IL-4, Interferon-?, LPS) might initially suggest a custom DC vaccine, the emphasis on broad antigen presentation and tumor lysates aligns poorly with custom vaccine designs, which were often more focused on narrow targets.
Other Candidates:
ICT-107, HSP-loaded DCs, and other experimental platforms fail to match the key elements of the process, including antigen breadth and tumor lysate use.
Remaining Uncertainty (5%)
The small chance of another DC vaccine stems from the possibility of an undisclosed proprietary or experimental platform closely mimicking DCVax-L's process.
However, no evidence of such a platform from that period strongly challenges DCVax-L's precedence.
dstock07734
10 hours ago
It will be a trillion dollar company sooner or later. The reason you fail to see it is because you are simply not equipped with sound understanding about the science.
Let me ask you simply questions.
How many DC vaccines can trigger massive t-cell infiltration into cold tumor sites? Let me tell you the answer. There is only one which is owned by NWBO.
Do you know why massive t-cell infiltration can be triggered? Let me tell you the answer again. Dendritic cells trained and primed by NWBO's technology can present hundreds of tumor-associated antigens to immune system. That's why.
Since you are betting against the revolutionary, I suggest you digest the following. Patients with three difficult-to-treat cold tumors were treated with DC vaccines manufactured with NWBO technology and the efficacy was absolutely stunning. Over 30% of metastasized or recurrent cancer patients, mostly children were saved.
See what happened to patient #2 who had cancer metastasized everywhere? After receiving DC vaccine without CYT107, the patient was cancer free for 4.5 years before the paper publication.
See the measurement of biomarker FOXP3? FOXP3 is the one that plays a crucial role in immunosuppression characterized by Treg cells. Here is a piece of homework for you. Go and search which company has FOXP3 inhibitor or inhibitors that can overcome immunosuppression resulted from Treg cells.
It is okay to bet against something only under the condition you have a full understanding about it. Unfortunately, you have no clue about the one you are betting against.
Abstract
Purpose: Patients with metastatic or relapsed pediatric sarcomas receive cytotoxic regimens that induce high remission rates associated with profound lymphocyte depletion, but ultimately few survive long term. We administered adjuvant immunotherapy to patients with metastatic and recurrent pediatric sarcomas in an effort to improve outcomes.
Experimental Design: Mononuclear cells were collected via apheresis, and tumor lysate was acquired via percutaneous biopsy at enrollment. Participants received standard antineoplastic therapy, followed by autologous lymphocytes, tumor lysate/keyhole limpet hemocyanin–pulsed dendritic cell vaccinations ± recombinant human IL7. Primary outcomes were toxicity and vaccine responses. Secondary outcomes were immune reconstitution, event-free survival, and overall survival (OS).
Results: Forty-three patients enrolled and 29 received immunotherapy. The regimen was well tolerated. Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated 5-year OS of 51% with significant differences based upon histologic group (63% vs. 0% for Ewing/rhabdomyosarcoma vs. other sarcomas) and response to standard therapy (74% no residual disease vs. 0% residual disease). Five-year intent-to-treat OS of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic Ewing/rhabdomyosarcoma was 77%, higher than previously reported in this population and higher than observed in a similar group treated with an earlier adjuvant immunotherapy regimen (25% 5-year OS). T-cell responses to autologous tumor lysate were identified in 62% of immunotherapy recipients, and survival was higher in those patients (73% 5-year OS with vs. 37% without immune response, P = 0.017). Immune reconstitution, measured by CD4 count recovery, was significantly enhanced in subjects treated with recombinant human IL7.