With all due respect you appear to be focusing on the negatives...

With all due respect you appear to be focusing on the negatives and are heading out the gate a bit early with respect to Vaxinia and Oncarlytics. These therapies are in the embryonic stage of existence when it comes to "in human" trials and we are a long way from meeting primary endpoints in the concurrent trials, let alone determine overall survival rates.

What I would suggest you do if you are truly interested in Imugene, as opposed to simply ruffling the feathers of minority groups as you appear to be, is take a closer look at Professor Yuman Fong's resume. Yuman is the chair of the City of Hope's department of surgery, is an internationally recognised expert in cancers of the liver, pancreas, gallbladder and bile ducts, and has led research efforts to employ genetically modified viruses to destroy cancer cells. He has been elected to the National Chair of Medicine and has hundreds of published and recognised papers relating to cancer research, gastrointestinal cancers and oncolytic viruses. When he says his that if his virus infects a solid tumour "it works", I actually believe him. Yes delivery methods, the best combination mode and the stage of cancer the patients being treated may all effect ones overall prognosis, but ostensibly what he is suggesting is that his virus infects cancer cells only, and has the ability to replicate within them to the benefit of patients with solid tumours, of any description.

Arguing the toss before the chickens come home to roost is futile in my opinion. Vaxinia and then Oncarlytics may wipe out multiple cell lines. They may only perform exceedingly well in early stage cancer patients. I highly doubt it but they may lead to multiple fatalities in patients with specific blood types. They may exhibit their best results when dosed at 10 parts to the 9, as opposed to 10 parts to the 7. They may succeed as a mono therapy as opposed to intravenous drug. They may fail in combination with mAb's. They may be best suited to treating those with Her 2 expressing cancers. In essence what I am saying is that you and I and everyone else do not have the answers yet. In the initial phases of two dose escalation trials designed primarily to determine the optimal biological dose rates for the drugs for safety purposes, why should or would we? But when it comes to the science itself, or those designing, developing and delivering it to patients, I think you'd be drawing a pretty long bow to start questioning the therapies being developed by The City of Hope Cancer Research Facility or for that matter the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Facility in New York, as you appear to be doing. These organisations don't become the leading and most renowned cancer research facilities in the US for nothing. I'm kind of thinking they have the runs on the board and know a thing or two about the topic we are discussing see https://www.cityofhope.org/yuman-fong#paragraph-345861 for more.

Just on another front you appear to be bringing a lot of anger to these threads, introducing personal discussion and at time personal attacks from what I can see. I'm not here all the time but I note you say such things as Yeah, I don't need to find another person to help me feel better about my analysis or Here's why I don't need anyone speaking for me. Similarly, your posts seem littered with condescending phrases such as You did know all of this, right? I realise from what I have read briefly you understand the chance of success of these therapies to be significantly low, and that's fine. But can you leave it now and stop polluting the threads with what would appear to be the personal assaults if not vendettas of someone with either an insecurity or inferiority complex, or both. We just don't need it over here. Last time I checked most posters were actually engaging in worthwhile discourse and a sense of harmony until late in the peace, when protagonists such as yourself came to the fore. In short you have had your say, and we respect your right to have it. I'm quite confident everyone has taken what have you have said on board, but from a humane perspective now could be a good time to leave it alone. By reducing threads to the lowest common denominator to simply have oneself heard and prove a point incessantly begins to verge on narcissism, and I'm sure you'll agree that's something best left to other threads if not platforms.


WMHB