7 ms·

Sometimes when it sounds too good to be true... Are there any real researches behind this project?

Fomite 13y ago
That there isn't a single, in press or published paper supporting this research, when the amount of evidence you have to bring to the table for your average NIH grant is staggering set off some red flags for me.
- dnautics 13y ago
  They have enough data to have completed an INDA and are proceeding to phase I clinical trials. That's a much, much higher bar than an NIH grant. Paper publication is not necessarily a useful metric.
  - Fomite 13y ago
    A number of NIH grants fund clinical trials. I direct you to the R34 mechanism, which is for Phase III trials as an example. And when you're evaluating science, the paper itself, in the literature, is the only real way to evaluate it's quality.
    - dnautics 13y ago
      And when you're evaluating science, the paper itself, in the literature, is the only real way to evaluate it's quality. This is incredibly short-sighted. Overvaluation of the literature is exactly why people pollute the literature with fraudulent results. It's why paper reviewing process and citations are polluted with political machinations. Ultimately, science is the entire corpus, from experimental design, through data collection, and presentation of work as papers. Reification of the publication process quietly enables researchers who keep everything up to publication a black box. Moreover because some NIH grants fund clinical trials doesn't mean that all (or even the average) NIH grants have that level of scrutiny
      - Fomite 13y ago
        How is it short sighted? What other mechanism is there to evaluate the quality of scientific work? They haven't presented at meetings as far as I can tell, and not in ways that manifested in say, a proceedings publication. Their internet postings have been vague on specific details. Am I to magically observe their experimental design and data collection? Or do I evaluate their work like I do all others - through the literature they present?
        dnautics 13y ago
        Hey! You gave some great examples! Go to meetings. Talk to them. Send them emails asking about their work. Observe experimental design and data collection (if that's not public, that should be part of your judgement). Read non-publication sources (patents, regulatory submissions). And then yes, do squishy stuff like "judge their character", "talk to their postdocs", "ask around about professional opinions". It's a conceit to operate as if science isn't a human endeavor. Also you are now conflating the specific case of this project with the general case. Read their INDA, if you are really itching for details.
        Fomite 13y ago
        I've read their white paper, it too is short on details. Right now, their experimental design and data collection aren't public. I go to meetings - I saw nothing about them at the largest infectious disease conference of the year this year. I'm really not conflating anything. I'm very skeptical of any project getting this much attention that doesn't have some papers published. It's not the only step, but it's a step, and one that hasn't been done yet. But, as an infectious disease epidemiologist, I'd be thrilled if I were wrong, and they were somehow paragons of vaccine research operating in stealth mode.
        dnautics 13y ago
        As an example: Salk didn't publish much before getting funded to work on the polio vaccine.
        13y ago
reidrubsamen 13y ago
Thanks for your comments! We have a great team with a lot of experience in computer science, drug delivery and HIV-relevant lab immunology. I studied biochemistry and computer science at UC Berkeley - then going to Stanford for an MD and MS in Computer Science - was in the PhD program in course 6-2 at MIT - left (without getting the PhD) to start Aradigm in Hayward where I worked for 10 years on inhaled insulin. That was a complex project that required a lot of special technology, much of which we developed ourselves, to make and characterize micro-particles. CV Herst, Pete Lloyd and I (all part of the Aradigm founding team) have been working together at Immunity Project since the beginning - Pete is an ME (UC Berkeley and Davis) who built and operates our precision spray drying system for sphere manufacturing. CV got his MPH at Berkeley in Med Micro and his PhD from North Western in Mo Bio later doing a post doc at MD Anderson. He has extensive experience working with HIV in both the diagnostic and lab research setting requiring handling the virus in cell culture.
- TrainedMonkey 13y ago
  That gives me a measure of confidence. Thanks!

That there isn't a single, in press or published paper supporting this research, when the amount of evidence you have to bring to the table for your average NIH grant is staggering set off some red flags for me.

dnautics 13y ago
They have enough data to have completed an INDA and are proceeding to phase I clinical trials. That's a much, much higher bar than an NIH grant. Paper publication is not necessarily a useful metric.
- Fomite 13y ago
  A number of NIH grants fund clinical trials. I direct you to the R34 mechanism, which is for Phase III trials as an example. And when you're evaluating science, the paper itself, in the literature, is the only real way to evaluate it's quality.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    And when you're evaluating science, the paper itself, in the literature, is the only real way to evaluate it's quality. This is incredibly short-sighted. Overvaluation of the literature is exactly why people pollute the literature with fraudulent results. It's why paper reviewing process and citations are polluted with political machinations. Ultimately, science is the entire corpus, from experimental design, through data collection, and presentation of work as papers. Reification of the publication process quietly enables researchers who keep everything up to publication a black box. Moreover because some NIH grants fund clinical trials doesn't mean that all (or even the average) NIH grants have that level of scrutiny
    - Fomite 13y ago
      How is it short sighted? What other mechanism is there to evaluate the quality of scientific work? They haven't presented at meetings as far as I can tell, and not in ways that manifested in say, a proceedings publication. Their internet postings have been vague on specific details. Am I to magically observe their experimental design and data collection? Or do I evaluate their work like I do all others - through the literature they present?
      - dnautics 13y ago
        Hey! You gave some great examples! Go to meetings. Talk to them. Send them emails asking about their work. Observe experimental design and data collection (if that's not public, that should be part of your judgement). Read non-publication sources (patents, regulatory submissions). And then yes, do squishy stuff like "judge their character", "talk to their postdocs", "ask around about professional opinions". It's a conceit to operate as if science isn't a human endeavor. Also you are now conflating the specific case of this project with the general case. Read their INDA, if you are really itching for details.
        Fomite 13y ago
        I've read their white paper, it too is short on details. Right now, their experimental design and data collection aren't public. I go to meetings - I saw nothing about them at the largest infectious disease conference of the year this year. I'm really not conflating anything. I'm very skeptical of any project getting this much attention that doesn't have some papers published. It's not the only step, but it's a step, and one that hasn't been done yet. But, as an infectious disease epidemiologist, I'd be thrilled if I were wrong, and they were somehow paragons of vaccine research operating in stealth mode.
        dnautics 13y ago
        As an example: Salk didn't publish much before getting funded to work on the polio vaccine.
        13y ago

reidrubsamen 13y ago

Thanks for your comments! We have a great team with a lot of experience in computer science, drug delivery and HIV-relevant lab immunology. I studied biochemistry and computer science at UC Berkeley - then going to Stanford for an MD and MS in Computer Science - was in the PhD program in course 6-2 at MIT - left (without getting the PhD) to start Aradigm in Hayward where I worked for 10 years on inhaled insulin. That was a complex project that required a lot of special technology, much of which we developed ourselves, to make and characterize micro-particles. CV Herst, Pete Lloyd and I (all part of the Aradigm founding team) have been working together at Immunity Project since the beginning - Pete is an ME (UC Berkeley and Davis) who built and operates our precision spray drying system for sphere manufacturing. CV got his MPH at Berkeley in Med Micro and his PhD from North Western in Mo Bio later doing a post doc at MD Anderson. He has extensive experience working with HIV in both the diagnostic and lab research setting requiring handling the virus in cell culture.

TrainedMonkey 13y ago
That gives me a measure of confidence. Thanks!