Member Info for Malachi

"Worth noting this research wouldn't have been possible with a ctDNA system" You last line says it all. I cannot see that Parsortix derived cells are any more expensive to produce than looking for ctDNA in plasma, and if plasma derived DNA is not significantly cheaper ( thinking cash strapped NHS etc,.), then the case for using it, all things being equal, is non existent.

The difference is massive. Not only viable cells, but tumour cells that have sunsequently been cultured -ie- made to reproduce in a cell line. ctDNA is chancy; you may not always get enough with which to do PCR - making a bigger sample for analysis. I tried to understand the paper in Lancet Oncology, specifically to look at how often they were unable to make use of a sample because it had insufficient ctDNA, but I simply could not be certain that I understood the figures.

Good news, but I am curious to know what happened to the results from the Eurofins Biolab in Italy that produced the original result announced back on July. and why go to Brazil to repeat the tests? Odd. I think they should have included low teperature studies, given the evidence of spread by food workers in low temp environments. Perhaps that come next.

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-fuel-cell-power-technology-charges-up-off-grid-construction-site/8540491/?mc_cid=0784c6393c&mc_eid=04de86c330

This study should have no impact on Parsortix SP. The trouble with doing a 1000 patient study is that it was probably conceived 5 y ago, and by the time it had been set up, gained ethics approval (a real pain, believe me), and 1000 patients recruited, Parsortix had appeared on teh scene big time. What do you do in those circumstances?. Abanbdon the study? No chance, as there is research kudos, and perhaps a funded researcher involved who would be out of a job. No it is necessary to plough on and finish the study even if the results are of diminishing value as new approaches - Parsortix- take the stage.
They can flog it to the NHS, as it is cheap-ish, but there is no way it will have an impact on Parsortix IMVHO.

The study on the News today is nothing to do with Parsortix. it is a plasma based study, that is, extracting bits of DNA from plasma. It is called plasmaMATCH so I think that is a clue to the type of analysis. They looked at 3 genes in DNA fragments, and compared them with tissue biopsies, with a 93% agreement between findings. One thousand patients were involved. The paper is in the Lancet Oncology. There is too little in the description in the Times to tell much about the detail. for instance in how many patients were they unable to extract decent amounts of DNA from teh plasma. Does the study therefore only include those patients from whom it was possible to extract DNA? If so, it is of limited value. It may be that doctors will be able to sasy "We will try to extract DNA from your plasma, but if we cannot find any, we will have to perform a tissue biopsy to obtain the information" To be quite clear I am speculating.
In relation to Parsortix plasma DNa is a very poor r4lation in terms of hte amount of useful information available.

May your patience be rewarded!

With respect, I do not think the Times article really does justify / explain the delay. The bovine cv was used instead of human cv because of difficulty accessing the latter, but the bovine strain had been accepted as behaving in the same way, and this is why they used bovine cv in the first place. As I have pointed out too often already, qc controls do not take 46 days and counting. A poster mentioned that the company doing the tests was based in Europe, and as nothing gets done in Europe in July and August, that is the reason for the delay !in qc. I am not sure I buy that either.
If, instead of completing the bovine cv work, SYS have now got access to human cv, they should by now have advised the market that the rest of the bovine results had been superseded by human cv testing, for which there is no point in any csse if the scientific community has allowed bovine cv testing as a surrogate for the human variety.
In any event what the commercial world want is evidence that d2p is effective againt all pathogenic viruses, and not just this years problem.
I am afraid SYM communication has been deeply unsatisfactory, and it makes me wonder about all sorts of possibilities as to why we have not heard about the outcome of qc tests, not all of them in the interests of us PIs.
IMVHO et,.

Someone is pushing the price down; good buy at this level

Is it called the Marie Celeste? Seriously though, I agree that hydrogen / ammonia looks to be the future fuel for heavy haul, such as ships, freight, and rail. Batteries are expensive, heavy, use scarce resources, and have a heavy carbon footprint.

Teabags compost well, don't think they are plastic.
New definition: soon = 7 weeks or more. Losing faith here..........

Submission to FDA end Sept 20. Approval in up to 6 months - but IMHO somewhat less. Listing on NASDAQ 2021

What comes first, the tumour or the CTC? the tumour, aka the primary, because that is what it is. I think what Photonic means is that it is possible to isolate CTcs before the primary becomes clinically apparent. That may be correct, and indeed, a control subject in one of the breast trials reported in an RNS was found to have breast CTCs. but it does not follow that Parsortix is being used for screening in pts. without clinical evidence of disease. AGL has enough on its plate without going down the pre-symtomatic screening route. One day in high risk patients just possibly, but not as a routine screening tool.

OMG, I am older than Yeo!

How old is Yeo? He was around as an MP in Maggies time. Does he have a serious track record or is he just an OF?

Very sorry, but I think this is a non runner. It is the solid metastatic spread that gets you, in the brain, bone, pericardium, lung etc,. Catching CTCs would be analogous to stable doors and bolting horses, I fear.

You would have to be filtering all the time! The insights into malignacies in general provided by Parsortix are manifold, and the steadily increasing number of peer reviewed, high impact studies, reflects this. This is a truly wonderful widget, and I don't think the full impact is appreciated, particularly by the market.

XPB is up to 60 posts on VLS in the last month; I am sure members continue to be grateful for his consistent, insightful and balanced comments, but perhaps he might consider that now is the time to back off and give us some well deserved peace.
PS; and keep off PHE as well.

Sadly not. It would only clear the CTCs and leave the primary and / or the metastases in situ.

Are there any out there with which DMTR comes head to head? I do not know of any, but that is saying nothing.