Member Info for inanaco

""" it makes chances of failure much lower than chances of success.""""

can you see the problem with that statement or not ... ?

which trial has failed .........

SCIB1 generating T cells that have been proven to migrate into a tumour ?

or

Keytruda which can stop the cancer turning T cells off ....

........ its frustrating i know ... but how can they not synergise ....???

that is the problem ... the only way to evaluate risk is to find evidence that risk exists ... what is it ?

that's a "personal vaccine" crumbs, how are we falling behind ?

well .......

after all the international searches and an exhaustive examination

we have a Patent ....

Ruckrover QC ........ knows better ...

ATB

again ...

what is your argument ...

Might be challenged ?

Might not get approved ?

all you are doing Ruck is throwing in a Red Herring .........

because the European Patent office has granted the patent as Novel .. ......... yet you will only accept its Novel if it wins a challenge against something in the market that "" Might"""" be able to challenge it which you cannot identify

mmmm ... A stupid debate IMHO

Now if you think that the T cells attacking the HPV cancer are Different to the T cells attacking Melanoma or lung cancer

then Bermudas post would be rational ..............

they are not ........ the only difference is the Code they lock onto .. ie a different antigen

what they all have in common is PD-1 .........

""Programmed death-1 (PD-1) is a 288 amino acid protein expressed in B and T cells as well as myeloid-derived cells"""""

so when i show over and over that synergy exists in other trials in different cancers ......... it proves synergy ...

so then you have to find a reason why it would fail

so that is the rational debate ....................... how can the trial fail ????

SCIB1 is proven to a phase 2 in 35 patients to induce High avidity t cells including clearing cancer mets of the lung

Keytruda proven to be "standard of care in melanoma" by switching on T cells by blocking the PD-1

TF ... so many do not understand the posts or the science ... example i Posted that Scientists now consider the relationship between vaccine and PD-1 has synergy and is "perfect"

yet .... Bermudashorts won't accept that, he just joins up with his bully boy mates ...

Bermudashorts27 Jan '19 - 21:19 - 19089 of 19122
0 3 0
Inanaco =

what do you mean by 'mechanism of synergy'? I'm not suggesting for one second that Inovio's vaccine is better than ours. I'm saying that the only way for SCIB1/PD1 combination to be proven is via clinical trials in melanoma patients treated with SCIB1 and anti PD1. Trials of a completely different vaccine in HPV cancer offer no proof whatsoever - I'm not sure how you would like me to back up that statement - it's basic stuff!

he just will not accept that the "synergy" model is proven ...

but when asked what is the mechanism of failure .. He cannot answer .................
when asked questions he cannot answer ?

so debate requires Two sides to actually be constructive ....

That rarely exists

Enjoy your Scancell journey ..

Make the case then

What exactly is the debate Ruck..... ?

the point of the "inevitable posts" is the US patent will get granted at some point ...

if any issues existed that would seriously affect that we would get an RNS

and i mentioned RNS prior to the post ...

I don't think TF actually understood what the post was about ...

its simple ..... Scancell discovered Cannibalism , once a cell is initiated it wears its Blue Peter Badge of honour ..

its the moditope Signature

Autophagy (from the Greek “auto”–self and “phagein”–to eat)

we have the patent .......... which proves "Novel Art"

is this back to debating the inevitable as not achievable .....

oh dear

good so his Grand daughter should be up to speed ...

Rats .. have faith ....

https://www.reuters.com/article/europe-patent-usa-idUSL2N1BR00H

we have the main European patent

I like this bit ....

""" For the purpose of better provoking the patients' own immune responses, cancer vaccines together with immune checkpoint inhibitor can be perfectly combined with each other. """"

synergy becomes perfectly ...

SCIB1 plus Keytruda ...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5771333/

No ... you ran away from the job, ..

i just questioned what was posted ...

chalk up more clutter Ruck .. great plan

well if its important why not post ? .... and if it's really important i am sure Scancell will RNS

never mentioned a Bar has been set .......... ?

stop making stuff up ...

this data takes time to come through "" Complete response""

its a bit more complicated because that was a 22 patient vaccine trial ... of which 4 had progressed adding both opdivo and keytruda to the regime ..

Of the four patients who developed progressive disease and were subsequently administered a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor, two patients rapidly exhibited a complete response. The most recent patient for which data was presented yesterday received pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA®); while the previously reported complete responder was treated with nivolumab (OPDIVO®). The patients moved from metastatic head and neck cancer to no evidence of disease and they remain alive two years after treatment. Detailed results of the first patient with head and neck cancer who received nivolumab were published in the October issue of Clinical Cancer Research.

Complete responders is as low as 4%

Findings presented at ASCO were based on long-term follow-up of a pooled analysis of the total population of patients across the two head and neck cohorts (n=192). Data showed an ORR (confirmed) of 18 percent (n=34/192) (95% CI, 13-24) – including eight complete responses and 26 partial responses. Thirty-three patients had stable disease and 93 patients had progressive disease. In total, 60 percent of patients experienced a decrease in their target lesions at the time of analysis. The median time to response was two months (range, 2-17 months). While median duration of response had not yet been reached (range, 2+ to 30+ months), 65 percent of responders (n=22/34) were continuing to respond at the time of analysis (85 percent of responses lasted for six months or more with 71 percent lasting for 12 months or more). An analysis of the survival measurements showed a median PFS of two months (95% CI, 1.9-2.1) – with a six-month PFS rate of 25 percent and 12-month PFS rate of 17 percent. The median OS was eight months (95% CI, 6-10) – with a six-month OS rate of 58 percent and a 12-month OS rate of 38 percent.

so inovio with 22 patients is showing superior Complete response rates if it has 2 that puts it at double PD1 on its own approx 8%

which is the same ratio scancell is looking at .. approx doubling efficacy ..............