Comments on: More Biotech Riches … http://www.stockgumshoe.com/2009/03/more-biotech-riches.html Frustrated or intrigued by email teasers from investment newsletters and advisers? We solve them and track their performance here ... so stick around, participate and subscribe (it's free)! Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:52:09 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Paul http://www.stockgumshoe.com/2009/03/more-biotech-riches.html/comment-page-1#comment-8446 Paul Mon, 06 Apr 2009 02:22:09 +0000 http://www.stockgumshoe.com/?p=1309#comment-8446 My understanding of DNA vaccines is that they only stimulate one of the two arms of the immune system, namely the antibody response, which tries to clear pathogens only after they have a foothold and are freely circulating. The other arm, namely the "cell-mediated response" is essentially not stimulated. The latter response is good at the earliest stages of infection because it attacks the infected cells at the site of infection itself. This is a long-standing weakness of DNA vaccines as prophylactics, hence the apparent re-packaging of early hopefuls now as therapeutics. However, therapeutics have to pack a pretty hefty punch, because the task is that much larger (the pathogen has already proliferated). Typically, gamma globulin shots are used for this, where you are sending in a ton of antibodies, ready to go. To use a DNA vaccine, ie try to stimulate antibody production after infection, seems to introduce time delays that seem a little iffy. All in all, looks like a re-packaging job by a fairly old company who long ago dispensed with the scientist who actually invented DNA vaccines. That's my take. Paul My understanding of DNA vaccines is that they only stimulate one of the two arms of the immune system, namely the antibody response, which tries to clear pathogens only after they have a foothold and are freely circulating. The other arm, namely the “cell-mediated response” is essentially not stimulated. The latter response is good at the earliest stages of infection because it attacks the infected cells at the site of infection itself. This is a long-standing weakness of DNA vaccines as prophylactics, hence the apparent re-packaging of early hopefuls now as therapeutics. However, therapeutics have to pack a pretty hefty punch, because the task is that much larger (the pathogen has already proliferated). Typically, gamma globulin shots are used for this, where you are sending in a ton of antibodies, ready to go. To use a DNA vaccine, ie try to stimulate antibody production after infection, seems to introduce time delays that seem a little iffy.

All in all, looks like a re-packaging job by a fairly old company who long ago dispensed with the scientist who actually invented DNA vaccines.

That’s my take. Paul

]]> By: tgk222 http://www.stockgumshoe.com/2009/03/more-biotech-riches.html/comment-page-1#comment-8400 tgk222 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:58:05 +0000 http://www.stockgumshoe.com/?p=1309#comment-8400 Nice write up, Travis. My compliments. I enjoyed yesterday's article as well. Nice write up, Travis. My compliments. I enjoyed yesterday’s article as well.

]]>