TOVAXIN ROLE CALL

IHaveMS-com · Post by **IHaveMS-com** » Thu May 31, 2007 7:33 pm

If it is not too personal, maybe RS-Girl would reveal her age.

flipflopper · Post by **flipflopper** » Thu May 31, 2007 8:03 pm

I’m 26 and I got my first vaccine 14 weeks after my procurement visit.

One thing that I must point out is that I didn’t ask if the vaccine was ready before week 14. Perhaps it was just more convenient for my study site to push back my appointment for my first vaccine a little. At my next appointment, I will ask the coordinator if my vaccine was ready before week 14.

IHaveMS-com · Post by **IHaveMS-com** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:24 am

Hi Flipflopper,

In retrospect, I should not have asked RS-Girl's age. Not that it is an inappropriate question, but because I don't think we can come to any conclusion about how fast someone's cells grow from a person's age and length of time until receiving vaccine. There are probably too many logistical factors to be able to begin drawing any relationship.

It would be interesting to compare someone's age and length of time to make the vaccine. The people making the vaccine can see the rate at which someone's cells will expand, but the number of bags of blood that are being worked on at any one time will probably be the greatest factor in the time it takes to make vaccine.

In RS-Girl's case, her cells won the race among the ones that were being processed at that time. I would take that to mean she has fast growing cells, but her competition might have had lazy cells. I have been told that I have fast growing cells.

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:18 am

IHaveMS-com wrote:It would be interesting to compare someone's age and length of time to make the vaccine. The people making the vaccine can see the rate at which someone's cells will expand, but the number of bags of blood that are being worked on at any one time will probably be the greatest factor in the time it takes to make vaccine.

Hi Tim,
I agree that it would be interesting to compare age to time it takes to produce the vaccine but not only are the people in the labs probably too busy to notice a pattern, but aren't they also blinded? I mean, when they get the bag of blood the only identifying information they have is the patient number, right?

I guess my point is that it seems that someone in the lab is producing vaccine for patient #131, they probably don't know age or sex of the patient. That might be unfortunate in that obvious patterns would of course go unnoticed. I wonder if anyone matches the number with the personal information after the trial ends?

Bob

IHaveMS-com · Post by **IHaveMS-com** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:49 am

but not only are the people in the labs probably too busy to notice a pattern, but aren't they also blinded?
when they get the bag of blood the only identifying information they have is the patient number, right?

The people in the lab are always aware of how fast the cells are expanding, but they do not know the name of the patent. In my original study, the patients where identified by a sequence of 3 letters and 3 numbers.

I wonder if anyone matches the number with the personal information after the trial ends?

I am sure they are keeping every possible piece of information. Even if something does not appear to be of use now, it may prove to be a valuable predictor or factor in the future. I think all information will remain nameless, but #131 should have -- female, 47, married to an obsessive compulsive individual, etc.

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:02 pm

IHaveMS-com wrote:I think all information will remain nameless, but #131 should have -- female, 47, married to an obsessive compulsive individual, etc.

Ha! I was fine not knowing that I was obsessive compulsive until little miss #131 (or whatever) notified me that that is what I am about 10 years ago. Sadly she's right though. I've never been able to suffer anything I'm not interested in and I can't let go of things I am interested in.

I read an MS article a couple of nights ago in which the researchers kept referring to "self reactive cells". That would be kind of a generic term for myelin reactive T cells do you think? By generic I mean that the researchers don't know or else don't specify which peptide strains the "self reactive cells" hail from.

Bob

IHaveMS-com · Post by **IHaveMS-com** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:18 pm

I read an MS article a couple of nights ago in which the researchers kept referring to "self reactive cells". That would be kind of a generic term for myelin reactive T cells do you think?

MRTCs are self reactive cells. In MS and other autoimmune diseases, the immune system does not identify these cells as self reactive and allows them to expand. Self reactive would be a generic term of which MRTCs are a subset.

In people who do not have an autoimmune disease, the immune system realizes that those cells are self reactive and they are not allowed to expand.

Shouldn't you be finishing your "honey do" list for your daughter's graduation party? You must not be obsessing over the party details.

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:47 pm

IHaveMS-com wrote: Shouldn't you be finishing your "honey do" list for your daughter's graduation party? You must not be obsessing over the party details.

Another HA! to that one. I didn't even make it halfway home from work when my wife called asking me to wash the pots and pans when I get home and then run from one side of Lansing to pick up the cake and to the other side to pick up chafing? dishes...or pans? I just finished the pots and pans and this moment is "my" time before I figure out how to fit all that crap in a mustang convertible and not have upside down cake.

My sister in laws just arrived from New York so I don't have to be asked twice to leave and do errands! I have to admit that I have the best kind of in-laws.....distant. If there just weren't roads between here and there

Bob

IHaveMS-com · Post by **IHaveMS-com** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:16 pm

My sister in laws just arrived from New York so I don't have to be asked twice to leave and do errands! I have to admit that I have the best kind of in-laws.....distant.

Company makes you twice glad -- glad to see them come and glad to see them go. In your case it might be once glad.

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:37 pm

IHaveMS-com wrote: Company makes you twice glad -- glad to see them come and glad to see them go. In your case it might be once glad.

Hi Tim,
I have never read anything more true.......regarding the once glad!
Bob

IHaveMS-com · Post by **IHaveMS-com** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:45 pm

Hi Bob,

I hope the rain holds off. It should be wonderful day either way. Give your daughter my well wishes.

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:53 pm

IHaveMS-com wrote:Hi Bob,
I hope the rain holds off. It should be wonderful day either way. Give your daughter my well wishes.

Thanks Tim, I think you're right. I appreciate the well wishes!
Bob

Lars · Post by **Lars** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 pm

Hi All,
Do you suppose the time table for "ready vaccine" is really related to cell growth? On a previous thread I asked what the average length of time was and got a fairly similar time frame answer. I have to wonder if geographical issues, clinical trial site competency, site importance, site patient numbers or patient preference (for reasons unknown to us) or just plain "life" delays may have some bearing.

Lars

RS-Girl · Post by **RS-Girl** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:06 pm

IHaveMS-com wrote:If it is not too personal, maybe RS-Girl would reveal her age.

I am currently 31 years old. I was diagnosed 6 months after the birth of my second son, I had just turned 30 at the time.

I know that I am a fast healer. I bounced back from a gall bladder surgery and both c-sections. My incisions were well healed before I left the hospital (less than 48 hours).

I had my blood drawn on March 12th and had my first injection on May 25th. So it took roughly 10 weeks and that is what I was quoted as the time frame that it would be ready.

I wonder if fast healing has anything to do with it.

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:11 pm

Lars wrote:Do you suppose the time table for "ready vaccine" is really related to cell growth? On a previous thread I asked what the average length of time was and got a fairly similar time frame answer. I have to wonder if geographical issues, clinical trial site competency, site importance, site patient numbers or patient preference (for reasons unknown to us) or just plain "life" delays may have some bearing.

Hi Lars,
Just a guess but it seems that some of the things you mentioned would be factors, but I'd be pretty pissed if Opexa assigned varying degrees of importance to the sites and I can't believe they would/could do that.

Something that comes to mind is that Tim has previously mentioned that not being accepted into the trial doesn't necessarily mean that Opexa wasn't able to isolate mrtc's at all from that person, but that the lab wouldn't be able to expand the number of cells in the time necessary for the dosing schedule.

I guess my reason for making that point is that the cells of some people evidently expand vastly quicker than others, so even though other factors are of course involved, the biggest time involved in producing the vaccine is waiting for the cell numbers to expand.

Bob