you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
>>It is interesting that his work should be in the field that he was challenged by two posters here.<<
Has someone been challenging Redplate’s work in product development?
Redplate has earned my grief because of his constant lying that makes this investment look rosier than is deserved and his antiquated understanding of T cell assays. Remember his story that the 20% positive immune response in the phase II trial shouldn’t be believed because when the same exact assays were performed immediately during a phase I study the response was 13/17? Then we found out the 17 patients were healthy normals and the therapy was given ex-vivo. What a dunce. And when arguing against IFN-gamma ELISPOT we got, “killer cells kill.” What a simpleton.
So no walshingham07, working for another podunk btech isn’t going to impress me. Just as little can be made from GSK not wanting him around and his not earning a PhD.
Dear Neurotic Chemist,
If I were you, I would make some herbal tea and relax. I have heard that people with an inferiority complex become very emotionally distraught upon learning someone of their focus has attained certain success and/or notable mention, recognition, etc. as Red has.
The above on top of holiday cheer can be overbearing in your condition.
With that said, I want to wish Red, our YMB guru, a heartfelt congratulations on this meritous announcement that so many in the biotech community would have been proud and pleased to attain.
You are pretty snarky and nasty lately. You would do better to stick to the facts around Stimuvax; preferably ALL the facts not just your favorites. Someday we will all find out what degree you have and what your job is too. I would like to know how impressed you think we would be. Since you aren't Martin Shkreli that is...
Do you really think YOU should be calling anyone pompous?
If you are trying to help the rest of us see the light you would not do it in such a pr**kish way. So I doubt that is your motive. You don't seem like the sort of person that has any desire to help anyone. You have an edge to you, one of those people nobody likes. You do know that don't you?
I must assume you are a PHD. But if you are a PHD certainly you wouldn't be working the message board, those jobs pay $15/hr, they are meant for college students and people in between jobs. Are you out of work? No shame in that. Just no need to be an a** about it. Part of why no one likes you.
I'm at a loss, you show potential in your ability to write, yet you do it in such a way it is not effective. Is that why you are out of work?
Are you looking to get attention? You got it. Happy?Kind of geeky to do it on a message board where the average age is over 50 don't you think? Is this what you thought you would be doing with your life back when you were earning your PHD?
I just can't understand it unless it is something above.
"Remember his story that the 20% positive immune response in the phase II trial shouldn’t be believed because when the same exact assays were performed immediately during a phase I study the response was 13/17? Then we found out the 17 patients were healthy normals and the therapy was given ex-vivo. What a dunce."
Actually seems perfectly plausible that the assay has to be done quickly and that you can't carry it out across town and that you have to match the HLAs of the material to be tested and the reagent.
Dismissing his points (not to mention that he is an acknowledged expert with experience doing these things) is what seems inappropriate.
Kind of a weird day to get into this, but okay (congrats LONGS!!).
>>Actually seems perfectly plausible that the assay has to be done quickly and that you can't carry it out across town and that you have to match the HLAs of the material to be tested and the reagent.<<
It would seem perfectly plausible to someone not practiced in the field, that’s what made it such an effective lie. But first let’s get some details out of the way. The T cell assay used in the phase II was the lymphoproliferation assay (LPA). This assay measures cd4 responses, not killing, and has no HLA matching component.
Now redplate has argued that it is critical to process T cells an hour or two after sampling or the viability suffers. However, in order to believe this you have to believe that the people running the phase II trial are complete idiots. They designed the trial knowing the blood was going to be shipped prior to processing. It isn’t me you have to believe. The options are, believe redplate’s assertions or to believe the highly qualified professionals that designed the trial.
Here is what Butts’ said about quality of the lymphocytes:
“There is a possibility that these low numbers (of positive responses) are related to technical difficulties in maintaining the viability of lymphocytes during the collection and transport of samples from the clinical sites."
This is simply more speculations. If the collection or transport of the T cells effected their viability then there would be data to support this idea. After you isolate and wash T cells to prepare them for freezing you count them. If there was a problem with viability they would have known before the cells were frozen. Usually when freezing T cells that have been shipped within 24 hours of collection the viability is in the 90% range. If the problem was maintaining viability then this should also be quantifiable. Before the assay can be performed the cells are counted and the viability determined. There is also a well known practice in science called a positive control. If the there was a problem with the assay then the controls would have made it evident and there wouldn’t have to be speculation without data support.
>>Dismissing his points (not to mention that he is an acknowledged expert with experience doing these things) is what seems inappropriate.<<
I didn’t dismiss his points out of hand, I have very good reasons for thinking his knowledge is dated.