(Total Views: 489)
Posted On: 09/24/2021 5:14:12 PM
Post# of 155024
Maraviroc binding blocks the intermediate CCR5 conformational state required for HIV fusion. It doesn't actually block HIV gp120 ligand from binding to CCR5.
Agree about the Progenics problematic statements that PRO-140 doesn't alter immune function. That completely goes against all the non-HIV indications for leronlimab! They said that because the concentration of PRO-140 required to block calcium entry (sign of CCR5 activation) by regular CCR5 immune ligands (like CCL3/4/5) was much higher than for blocking HIV entry. Nader confused the issue very much with his comments.
It would be great to see CCL3, CCL4, CCL31, and CCL5 activation results on CCR5 in the presence of leronlimab. The early papers only showed two of them, I believe. Would like to see the same with maraviroc.
.. if I recall all the above correctly.
BP was asked some of these questions and just glibly responded "I know the answer. CYDY should be able to answer those questions," and never actually responded!
Agree about the Progenics problematic statements that PRO-140 doesn't alter immune function. That completely goes against all the non-HIV indications for leronlimab! They said that because the concentration of PRO-140 required to block calcium entry (sign of CCR5 activation) by regular CCR5 immune ligands (like CCL3/4/5) was much higher than for blocking HIV entry. Nader confused the issue very much with his comments.
It would be great to see CCL3, CCL4, CCL31, and CCL5 activation results on CCR5 in the presence of leronlimab. The early papers only showed two of them, I believe. Would like to see the same with maraviroc.
.. if I recall all the above correctly.
BP was asked some of these questions and just glibly responded "I know the answer. CYDY should be able to answer those questions," and never actually responded!
(4)
(0)
