Your questions simple enough without 5,000 words t
Post# of 154969
(Total Views: 420)
Posted On: 07/08/2025 8:55:40 AM
Your questions simple enough without 5,000 words trying to correlate biomarkers and whatnot.
Tumor is cold. Add Leronlimab.
LL helps it become hot. Add ICIs.
ICIs can now do their job. Remove LL.
Tumor environment probably begins return to pre-LL state.
ICI's won't work again.
Or in more scientific terms we can use Harvard's Pasta-Based Methodology called The Cavatappi Conundrum.
You can't cook your pasta without very hot water. And if you initially get your water boiling and add the pasta you're going to start to get cooked pasta but it takes time. If you remove the heat before the pasta is cooked you're going to end up with pasta that isn't cooked all the way through. Sub optimal cavatappi, if you will.
Can the pasta get all the way cooked? Maybe. Depends on how long exactly the water stayed hot enough to cook the pasta.
Will there be a residual effect of LL if you take it away at some point? Probably. Maybe. I mean, you can get a good look at a t-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it?
I can't imagine anyone in the scientific community is going to feel good about removing the only thing that got the patient to where the ICI's would work. And the roll-over study is to involve taking both, by the way. I'd imagine the breast cancer trial will involve them both being administered for the duration too. That means the science will say both of them, together, were the reason for the successful treatment of the crc or mtnbc patients.
Cytodyn would be dumb to pull LL out of the mix at any point and give both the trial a chance to fail and doctors a reason to think LL is only important for 45 days. And if the trial is a resounding success, the doctors would be dumb to not follow the dosing regimen of said trial when the approved indication is going to mirror the trial design. They'd be freestyling for no good reason.
I guess what I'm saying is that you can follow the logic, but trying to back of napkin predict it exactly is a fairly pointless endeavor because it's doubtful the company allows LL to be stopped. Plus the whole cavatappi thing.
Tumor is cold. Add Leronlimab.
LL helps it become hot. Add ICIs.
ICIs can now do their job. Remove LL.
Tumor environment probably begins return to pre-LL state.
ICI's won't work again.
Or in more scientific terms we can use Harvard's Pasta-Based Methodology called The Cavatappi Conundrum.
You can't cook your pasta without very hot water. And if you initially get your water boiling and add the pasta you're going to start to get cooked pasta but it takes time. If you remove the heat before the pasta is cooked you're going to end up with pasta that isn't cooked all the way through. Sub optimal cavatappi, if you will.
Can the pasta get all the way cooked? Maybe. Depends on how long exactly the water stayed hot enough to cook the pasta.
Will there be a residual effect of LL if you take it away at some point? Probably. Maybe. I mean, you can get a good look at a t-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it?
I can't imagine anyone in the scientific community is going to feel good about removing the only thing that got the patient to where the ICI's would work. And the roll-over study is to involve taking both, by the way. I'd imagine the breast cancer trial will involve them both being administered for the duration too. That means the science will say both of them, together, were the reason for the successful treatment of the crc or mtnbc patients.
Cytodyn would be dumb to pull LL out of the mix at any point and give both the trial a chance to fail and doctors a reason to think LL is only important for 45 days. And if the trial is a resounding success, the doctors would be dumb to not follow the dosing regimen of said trial when the approved indication is going to mirror the trial design. They'd be freestyling for no good reason.
I guess what I'm saying is that you can follow the logic, but trying to back of napkin predict it exactly is a fairly pointless endeavor because it's doubtful the company allows LL to be stopped. Plus the whole cavatappi thing.
(22)
(1)