Page 6 of 7

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:47 am
by connieb
Mike, thanks so much for your explanation(s). gkalman, so sorry to hear about your wife-- did they offer to retest? I guess what I am still not understanding is whether MRTCs can "come" and "go" depending maybe on the desease activity level or medication or some other factor?

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:49 pm
by ewizabeth
Gkalman,

I'm sorry about that. I realize it could also happen to me. I'm prepared to go on to a plan B if it does (not sure what it is yet though).

Tell your wife I said thanks for trying. I wish it would have worked for her.

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:28 pm
by gkalman
Completely agree with hmtucker. Don't get upset and don't get your hopes up.

Though, I used to do applied statistics for a living, (Probably why I like it so much), and 95% would get disproven with an independent sample size even this small. There can be other explanations. E.g., mistakes, something done wrong at the office, MRTCs falling in potency the farther they need to travel due to time, temperature, vibration, etc. A million other reasons.

connieb, yes, they said 30 days. Don't know for sure if she'll do it. Though, most likely, she will at least once more because she likes the concept so much.

ewizabeth, if it is the office messing up, then you should not have this issue as your guys just do a phenomenal job.

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:39 pm
by Lyon
00

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:22 pm
by flipflopper
Gkalman, I’m sorry your wife tested negative.

Lyon, thank you so much for posting some of Tim's responses! I really appreciate it! :D

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:47 pm
by Lyon
00

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:32 pm
by Loobie
Bob,

Thank you once again for your research. You always seem to know what it is that some of us want to know (maybe that's because we say so in this forum!) and you go find it out. I have also contacted Tim and he has been helpful to me. I don't have specific questions like you do, but that's just because I think in terms of "this shit sucks!" and tend to forget what I meant to specifically ask.

Thanks for finding out all the answers for me! I greatly appreciate it.

Lew

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:20 pm
by Lyon
00

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:48 pm
by ewizabeth
Bob,

You just made me realize something... if Tovaxin turns out to be a cure, or near cure for MS, what are we going to talk about here, Recipes? Politics? Blood pressure medicine? :wink:

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:44 pm
by Lyon
00

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:27 pm
by connieb
Thanks for the info Bob. It sounds like pretty much everyone with active MS will eventually have MRTCs in their blood, so testing negative is a temporary thing only? I wonder if MRTCs they are looking for correlate in any way with enhancing lesions-- if both are present during and preceding relapses.

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:21 pm
by Lyon
00

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:02 pm
by CureOrBust
Lyon wrote:I really wish the Opexa site were more interactive because they don't seem to answer questions that you ask and they don't volunteer answers to that kind of information with a FAQ page.
One of your strengths is that you just go up to the source and ask the question.

Have you tried asking the same questions to "T-Cell Vaccination (Sheba Medical Center)"? They are at Phase III testing while tovaxin is only at Phase IIb

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:47 am
by gkalman
Thank you Bob,

This is all great information. 50% is more like it. It should be interesting to see what the real numbers are once they test the thousands.

One inference I am making (i.e., someone correct me if I am not understanding something), if a relapse-remission patient tests negative, then there is a 95% or better chance ones true present state is remission.

If that is true, then, I for one, am somehow relieved for now.

Weird, instead of "sorry it was negative" should it be, "Great to hear it was negative, and if she gets tested again, I wish you it is negative again?" ;)

P.S., we also have a new scientific test for disease activity to add to the MRI. Don't know if it is cheaper of more expensive. But, anything new is exciting as it happens so rarely.

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:12 am
by ewizabeth
gkalman wrote:ewizabeth, if it is the office messing up, then you should not have this issue as your guys just do a phenomenal job.
I hope you're right. They're certainly being very particular about what I should or should not be taking as far as medicines right now. Who knows, they may even find that some other medicines affect the T cell numbers, like aspirin, or other anti-inflammatory medications. I'm even trying to avoid ibuprofen unless it's absolutely necessary. Aren't steroids anti-inflammatory medicines? They had me stop taking my Nasonex spray, and I had to be off of it for 60 days before the blood draw.