"Why is it you claim you have no alts but you always have a thumbs up milliseconds after you post drivel?"
Because you're an insecure liar.
The mention of Cabo was out of place and not necessary for the question he asked. I made a bad assumption.
"What planet you live on...??
Why are your communication skills so confusing...??"
Why would you say
"The recently announced collaboration between Intrexon and Merck speaks volumes to what might be playing behind the scenes"
when we're talking about PI3K/mTOR and why it seems to be sidelined and intrexon is not the same target (chimeric antigen receptor T-cell cancer therapies).
Why didn't I take the time to attack you about it since it had no place in the conversation like him mentioning CABO in this question, when you clearly try to attack other people for whatever? What is wrong with you? That's why I don't like you. You're a jerk.
Just respond like Scrotem_harden.... Simple statement to get me to look at it again.
I only got 3 hours of sleep in the past 2 days. Give me a break.
OK. It's a phase 1 "expansion"; most likely to evaluate efficacy by taking out the tolerated dose for a longer period.
I don’t have immediate access to that article but he is on other previous papers where they mentioned they were looking for biomarkers for efficacy in refractory lymphomas. To me, it seems that they’re simply a third party expertise to help guide trials because large company dynamics often becomes a bit nutty and the third party demands results and competence.
Nothing has been done with this since 2013….??? Sanofi might have sidelined this...?
Meaning that the 15 of 20 means of the 20 that move forward, 15 will succeed. It's not that if they do phase 1, it'll work.
The clinical trials site says "sponsor" and the name after it is who is paying for it. In this case Sanofi.
It's possible to increase odds, if they focus on drugs that have a lot of data surround it. They can use that to focus in on the right trial design. How exactly is START involved?
My guess is that they use a cheaper Phase1B focusing on efficacy (& safety) to answer questions from Phase 1A before opting for an expanded phase II.
If you're asking me. I'm not able to tell you the formula. I just know it's not a straight forward problem. The big boys are like to factor in the number of trials, compounds, shares they own, how many times it dropped on trial results,...
A lot of probabilities. It's like calculating risk for insurance. I'm not the one to answer this. I know that there are PhD in science in the stock business but overall, I'm not sure they're using medical knowledge to a great extent.
I didn't say it takes years to see an effect. I said long term use might be and issue and the FDA wants 7 years of safety data.
I have to say that for the immunotherapies, monoclonal antibodies (mabs) looks best to me. Anyone know companies in this area?
I glanced over a review of the 60 minutes piece. With the polio example, they're using the same concept of cancers cells produce certain proteins in higher quantities so it's more damaging to cancer cells. Thus it's unlikely to be a cure and long term use might cause some adverse events since it does affect healthy tissue which accounts for the 7 years of safety testing.
I'm seeing a lot of caveats and something to think about. It seem that they would need to use something the body cannot eradicate on its own, engineered not to reproduce (which they did), ... etc
I have to say I like the idea but I’m dubious at best about investing early in what appears to be a relatively new therapy option with only one to a dozen approved for any particular method of immunotherapy. PD-1 is getting attention now and the only vaccine approved is Provenge.
The only vaccine approved is Provenge by everyones favorite Dendreon (DNDN) and look what happened there.
I don’t know too much about it. If the specific mutation is targeted , why would immunotherapy fail on some but work on others? Everyone who gets the polio vaccine properly is immune to polio... I guess it does come down to what type of immunotherapy.
Anyone have good reads on this?
"previously untreated kidney cancer"
Sometimes it's hard to recruit first in line treatments for unproven drugs. People tend to want what is known to be best when they're staring down the barrel.
The differences between P2 and P3 studies give clues to what the FDA was asking for to advance. Such as a larger patient population, longer study (i.e. did it go from 12month to 17 month), etc...
Anyone know which study was P2? I can't find it. Exploration study?
I did remember you seemed a bit squirrelly and said you covered.
You may be able to project but you can't predict with certainty how and when fed talk hits the market.