It is always good to have additional data, but this result is totally expected, so I don’t update much based on it. When I’ve discussed the efficiency evidence with RaDVaC team, they mentioned that: - they have tried commercial tests and didn’t manage to get even one positive result - they have tried ELISA to measure the blood antibody titers and got some good results (part awesome, part good, part not so good) - they have tried ELISA to measure the saliva antibodies, there are more of them than in blood samples, but there is no methodology to translate the raw data into titers for saliva - they focus on B-cell target mechanism, not ACE2 binding and definitely not serum antibodies, so they don’t care that much about the serum antibody titers
I haven’t. Firstly, there is no proper data, just some bits of evidence. Secondly, yep, I am pretty sure that they would get in trouble if they did anything that looked like a trial, so I assume that they stay on the safe side and well, don’t do anything like a trial.
It is always good to have additional data, but this result is totally expected, so I don’t update much based on it. When I’ve discussed the efficiency evidence with RaDVaC team, they mentioned that:
- they have tried commercial tests and didn’t manage to get even one positive result
- they have tried ELISA to measure the blood antibody titers and got some good results (part awesome, part good, part not so good)
- they have tried ELISA to measure the saliva antibodies, there are more of them than in blood samples, but there is no methodology to translate the raw data into titers for saliva
- they focus on B-cell target mechanism, not ACE2 binding and definitely not serum antibodies, so they don’t care that much about the serum antibody titers
It seems as if there’s a real shortage of actual evidence that RaDVaC does anything useful.
Yes :-)
Do you know whether the ELISA tests were against the radvac peptides specifically, or against full proteins?
I don’t know.
Have you asked why that resulting data isn’t public? Is it fear of legal issues of being accused to run clinical trials?
I haven’t. Firstly, there is no proper data, just some bits of evidence. Secondly, yep, I am pretty sure that they would get in trouble if they did anything that looked like a trial, so I assume that they stay on the safe side and well, don’t do anything like a trial.