If you would like to ask our webinar guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund a question please submit them here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
‘ claiming some sort of Moral High ground ..‘ f#oking hell, that’s rich.
In fact .... 8 mg exceeded 4mg in the "solid tumor setting .. and indeed did it without "T reg suppression" in Humans
Bermuda ...
what i am posting is clearly beyond your understanding ...
the original mouse data was to produce an expectation for the adjuvant setting ........... "it exceeded expectations"
that setting IS NOT the same as the current bulky tumor in situ ... for a start we are not using T reg suppression ...
really if you cant follow the posts dont try and wriggle out of this by claiming some sort of Moral High ground ..
Prof Poulam Patel 2014
Taking the brake off T cells with checkpoint inhibitors and pressing the accelerator with active immunotherapies such as SCIB1 may be an effective way of overwhelming the disease and increasing efficacy even further."
so this is reverse engineering ... Human to mouse rather than mouse to Human
SCIB1 combined with PD-1 blockade induced efficient therapy of poorly immunogenic tumors (2016)
Patients with bulky tumours in situ is the precise the setting for the current SCIB1 trial. The preclinical mouse data for SCIB1 was not exceeded in the clinic and you should ask admin to remove your 12.35 because it is incorrect.
You might also like to apologise to those you were calling gullible.
your thinking in one dimension .... try 3d
reverse engineer the human data back to the mouse model which is what Scancell did with "synergy" .... which was then shown to work in the mouse model ...
that was not the target, bermuda .... "bulky tumor" indeed if you read it they suppressed t regs. to achieve that. the Predicted target was the adjuvant setting ........... however that is a very difficult thing to create in the mouse model ... you have to work with solid tumors then predict an outcome based on the immune response observed
Yes, all there on pages 1086 and 1087. 'large bulky tumours completely rejected and 20% of animals cured.'.
Those results were not exceeded in the SCIB1 trial.
just look for C57B16 mice ... they are the SCIB1 ....
SCIB1? ie. gp100 and TRP-2?
if you read the documentation that i gave you just .. its in there ... but not as a graph which would help ...
I don't think otherwise because I haven't seen the preclinical data in mice for SCIB1 which was why I asked you for one but no worries if you haven't either.
"this approach has now been translated into the Clinic "
https://www.scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/publications/papers/using-monoclonoal-antibodies.pdf
Lindy, Victoria and Ian ... .,... ATB
but if you need the strategy of the building of the vaccine go back to 2009 paper ... which includes various mouse data outputs .. https://www.scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/publications/papers/mabs-paper.pdf including why they inserted a CD4 .... which in previous discussions on the other BB you did not know was included in the immunobody construct ... you thought is was a CD8 vaccine .. when actually it had helper T cells supported
you dont even need to find the original mouse data ... Bermuda
as scancell replicated the results with the Combi Mouse data ... otherwise how would they do the comparison ?
what is Fact ........... the Human data ""exceeded"" expectation ..............
that ""expectation"" was generated in the mouse model
if you think otherwise ... let me know
'Scancells success in the mouse model was exceeded in Trial '
I assume you must be referring to the original SCIB1 trial - do you have a link for the preclinical research on mice for SCIB1?
Scancells success in the mouse model was exceeded in Trial ....
The Gullible who cannot read the results failed to spot that ...
which is why you can trust the Immunobody mouse model ...
on the moditope side ... the mouse model has yielded impressive data ... but that is supported by Human Blood ... via two sources now
the vaccine peptides and extraction of the TCR from specific T cells activated by those peptides
"Worthy of Trust and Confidence: Mousegate Series, Book 2"
Ray Pointer,
Is this academic confirmation that some humanised mice, cancer vaccine results have misled gullible humans?
why do you always "make things up " bermuda so that you can start an argument between what you think i mean and what your think you mean ...... incredible !!
"""Hang on a minute, are you still seriously suggesting that Scancell have been dosing patients since 19th August?"""
SCIB1-002 trial opened for recruitment in UK and actively screening patients
https://www.scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/docspres/agm-2019_all_09sep19.pdf
I refer to ... AGM presentation
""we are active in screening patients ""
I do not know if patients have been treated or not ...
my post was about "is an RNS required"
which is why i asked TF do you have proof its stalled ?
Hang on a minute, are you still seriously suggesting that Scancell have been dosing patients since 19th August?
ps
I was referring to the first patient dosed RNS
"""so was I ""
had the debate before with you, hence i indicated pointless to repeat
Its my opinion they don't need to RNS
its your opinion they do ...
seems your like TF ... assuming what i think !!
big mistake
ah I was referring to the first patient dosed RNS. Am more than happy to resurrect mousegate but you might not like it.