What really gets me going is how stupid and obvious it all is once you start really pinning down facts, dates and time frames. Makes my disappointment in regulatory bodies all the greater, these are all things they HAD to have seen.
And one other thing: I started out entirely clueless a year ago as well. The time you invest in reading the files and other people's work pays out and I encourage everyone to do so, because it's the crime of the millennium and everyone with responsibility is intentionally asleep at the wheel.
I have an idea why they had the toxicology for V8 and not V9. It is possible that V9 is making the spike protein and another peptide. The Western blot issues are trying to hide this.
And yes, the toxicology studies using V9 were a little concerning especially liver vacuolations, but data came in too late for them to stop the trials...my complaint with the rolling review. I dont think many people realize this.
Also in study 3866 they used a 100ug dose of V8!! Why do this study at all?
I think they are hiding what exactly that 162b2V9 is actually coding for. Its not the spike, or more accurately, not just the spike.
38166 used a 100 ug Dose of b2v8 because they needed it to have the "best" results, is my suspicion considering all the other lengths they went to to make b2 seem like the best choice.
What makes you think theres another peptide in v9?
You mean best for immunological response? What about toxicity? Edema? cytokines? etc? So 100ug of b2v8 gives great neutralizing timers at an acceptable toxicity profile?Would you say 30 ug of b2v9 is roughly equivalent? Implications for codon optimization then.
it appears v9 can make another peptide if the mrna strand flips to read right to left. Dont know if it is happening. Still speculative so I dont want to elaborate yet.
must be exhausting for them trying to keep everything hidden, it's way beyond my understanding so thank you for breaking it down
What really gets me going is how stupid and obvious it all is once you start really pinning down facts, dates and time frames. Makes my disappointment in regulatory bodies all the greater, these are all things they HAD to have seen.
And one other thing: I started out entirely clueless a year ago as well. The time you invest in reading the files and other people's work pays out and I encourage everyone to do so, because it's the crime of the millennium and everyone with responsibility is intentionally asleep at the wheel.
Well this is gold. Just reading your stack.
I have an idea why they had the toxicology for V8 and not V9. It is possible that V9 is making the spike protein and another peptide. The Western blot issues are trying to hide this.
And yes, the toxicology studies using V9 were a little concerning especially liver vacuolations, but data came in too late for them to stop the trials...my complaint with the rolling review. I dont think many people realize this.
Also in study 3866 they used a 100ug dose of V8!! Why do this study at all?
I think they are hiding what exactly that 162b2V9 is actually coding for. Its not the spike, or more accurately, not just the spike.
38166 used a 100 ug Dose of b2v8 because they needed it to have the "best" results, is my suspicion considering all the other lengths they went to to make b2 seem like the best choice.
What makes you think theres another peptide in v9?
You mean best for immunological response? What about toxicity? Edema? cytokines? etc? So 100ug of b2v8 gives great neutralizing timers at an acceptable toxicity profile?Would you say 30 ug of b2v9 is roughly equivalent? Implications for codon optimization then.
it appears v9 can make another peptide if the mrna strand flips to read right to left. Dont know if it is happening. Still speculative so I dont want to elaborate yet.