This is what I expected. The immune system is all or none. It either sees the threat or it doesn't. In the case of the responders, they saw the HPV and got rid of it. The immune system works. You just have to get it to see the bad guys. That's what the vaccine does
This is EXTREMELY impressive. Over a 3-fold increase in complete clearance. This is much more impressive than their primary endpoint results. But did you notice that the majority of the patients who responded to the vaccine achieved complete clearance, whereas the majority of the patients who had regression in the placebo group still had virus and probably still had CINI. I hypothesized that a long time ago in one of my posts. So now we just need to boost immunity in the ones that did not respond. Congrats Delivery, we're half way there.
They limited the trial to those women who had known CIN3 caused only by HPV 16 and 18, so your statement above is inaccurate. Historically HPV 16 mediated disease is the most difficult to treat so getting near 50% is a great response.
I answered your question in my "congrats longs" thread below. Results are good but not great. They show that the vaccine works by itself, but work still needs to be done to optimize the vaccine. As it stands now, the vaccine increases your chance to clear the HPV induced cervical dysplasia by 50%. Proof of concept is definitely there.
The data is good, Not fantastic, but good. I think they will need to add an adjuvant (IL-33 or IL-12) or add PD-L1 inhibition (ah hem, Roche, you gonna step up now?) eventually to get the results from good to great. This is a fantastic day for longs. The promise of INO will continue.
Zarc, you're funny but I respect you. I've been long since last August and added many times along the way, and I think you and I may have even argued as you used to bash to get in cheaper. To me (and others on this board) you are one of the "new longs" that you speak of. I saw in AMBS what you just posted above last August... But I thought it would happen quicker than it did (invested in INO in June, and that one happened pretty quickly). You obviously had much better timing than I did with AMBS, and you made money flipping, whereas I just held.
Here's to continued prosperity as you describe above for the next few months.
And good luck with INO too. It should do that, easily, if the immune activating effects are as good as advertised.
I am not saying that I won't take profit, etc for 10 years. I will. But I will have at least some money invested in AMBS for that time frame.
One thing though... MANF has two functions. One is as a neurotrophic factor, and that's how it is purported to work in Parkinson's, RP, and other neurodegenerative conditions. The other function of MANF is that it is the ONLY drug targeting the endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway. It is induced as an end result of the ER stress pathway, and it helps prevent further damage caused by that pathway. That pathway gets induced as an end result of many diverse insults including Wolfram's (caused by a mutation in Wolframin-a protein that anchors into the endoplasmic reticulum that also is involved in the ER stress response), ischemia (loss of oxygen to tissue such as heart attack or stroke, or critical limb ischemia, or when an organ is taken out of the body prior to be transplanted into another person), toxin/chemotherapy, or protein misfolding that occurs with depositional diseases (This is actually the way the pathway was discovered; this occurs in Alzheimer's disease- beta amyloid plaque and neurofibrillary tau tangles, as well as Huntington's, myotonic dystrophy; and any other trinucleotide repeat disorder where the proteins get misfolded).
If it misfires with one of its mechanisms of action, it has a completely different group of disorders it can target.
That's why I am on the 10 year program with this company. Lympro and eltoprazine are just icing on the cake.
I agree with what you said. My point was, 100 million to 1 billion, whatever, for 4 years is still temporary. But it's a big boost. After that, revenue will probably go down but will still be significant. By then other things will have progressed to the point that the market will assign value to them (eltoprazine and MANF). And something should be partnered as well, generating income that way
This manuscript has an expanded marker list including CD28. Although CD28 was not as useful as CD69. I agree, though, that if the new IP is better than 91/92 (by BD in the analytical performance abstract) that this will be a home run test, and a test that will be the gold standard (for now) for diagnosing Alzheimer's. The reason I say for now is that better tests will likely become available in 3-4 years. Remember, there is nothing else available until then so lympro will be the best. Then I don't care what happens to Lympro. Because eltoprazine and MANF will be getting in gear/goin full swing and that is where the real money is with this company.
Lympro is a temporary money maker to get the company the money needed to progress with the rest of the pipeline. Let's see what partnership news we get by year end for MANF and possibly eltoprazine
Sorry, after per GC should be a period, not a colon. That may be a little confusing
You are correct, in an ideal world 99% 99% would be amazing. But if the test results (remember GW Medical Technologies original data showed a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of a whopping 96% in a study of 72 patients- The long term results from these patients will also be presented in Copenhagen in the clinical abstract, per GC: Remember the sensitivity should go up with time as patients who originally did not meet diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's get older, and possibly progress to disease, while the specificity should stay the same, since once your diagnosed with Alzheimer's, you don't really lose that diagnosis, unless you watched the planet of the apes movie and James Franco gives you a retrovirus to cure Alzheimer's...).
Now could this be the "new intellectual property" that AMBS recently acquired for the beefed up LymPro test:
Type this into your favorite web browser:
"Multivariate analysis of differential lymphocyte cell cycle activity in Alzheimer's disease."
It is a paper by the original authors of the LymPro test published in 2012. Instead of just using CD69, It measured 12 cell surface molecules on lymphocytes. 7 of these markers were differentially regulated on lymphocytes of Alzheimer's disease. Using these markers, a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 92% was obtained in a total of 32 Alzheimer's patients compared to 56 controls (26 Parkinson's patients and 30 healthy age matched controls).
the original results the scientists presented were 92 and 90% for their expanded study).
Now: if BD was able to replicate these studies, with a sensitivity over 90% and a specificity greater than that, that would be the best news for AMBS.
If the specificity is 96% like originally reported by GW, this will definitely be used by the big pharma for clinical trials, to be used as an exclusion criteria since if the test is negative, that will tell the company with 96% certainty that the patient does not have Alzheimer's disease.
This is why I said the analyticalperformance presentation is so much more important than the clinical performance presentation.
Do we know when the analytical performance data will be presented at the conference?
Thanks in advance
Apparently Gerald agrees with me too in his blog that the analytical performance is more important than the clinical performance
See bball's post below, and my post below it for the answer to your and eloinment's questions. Its all about who is performing the test. If AMBS is doing it, nobody believes it (See the price chart to the right showing 10 cents per share). If BD shows that AMBS is not full of horse manure, whoa nilly.