Response to news article =>  AIDS Study Raises Hopes for Gene Therapy Treatment

Children's Hospital ((((BUZZZZZ))))
 I read and re-read the work. Read carefully.
 Reverse transcriptions of TAT will infringe.
 But there is much more that is of keen interest. They are not in human trials, only test tube. They have not stopped HIV. Only
 make claims to 80%-90%. Remember the wonder that is associated with the FACT that each of us started with only two sets of
 molecules? There was no 80% or 90% to make us, it had to be 99.999999% and even at this level, 1 mutation in 1 billion can
 prove fatal. Children with SCID are "missing" one gene. In actuality, it is there, with a flaw in its sequence. This is a good example
 of a 1/1 Billion mutation causing havoc.

 When someone successfully uses Genetic Antisense to regulate a target and the test tube results are 100%, then we have
 something to worry about as to competition. Here is what they are missing, categorically>>>

 1) An 80% to 90% success rate points to a simple fact. They have not yet discovered that HIV is able to function without the use
 of its TAT gene. The researchers falsely conclude that their approach is fundamentally correct, but perhaps the molecular tools are
 not quite perfect. They are wrong. Their "basic" tools are the same as ENZO's. They can perfectly isolate a TAT gene, perfectly
 reverse transcribe it and perfectly deliver (note the use of U-1, and U-1 is not a cell, it is a region in a human cell). Remember,
 when I say perfect, it is in context with test tube work. I am discounting the human immune system. I am also discounting their
 transduction rate. The test tube results they give, only talk about treated cells. What happens to the untreated cells, folks? They
 die. So the results reported are only for the observation that blocking the TAT gene stops HIV 80-90% of the time. Duhhhh, that is
 about 6 years late, IMO. Not to offend their work, it is critical that everyone in the field work as hard as possible, but they are
 walking all over ENZO's public documents. For example, the Journal of Virology, which is copied at HTTP://www.ENZO.com,
 Research and Focus, Stable HIV.

 2) What else is wrong with their experiment? In time they will see that multi-targeting is needed. Ooooops, another area of
 INFRINGEMENT. But lets continue. Suppose they target two genes, or three, or four, or five. Then and only then, they will
 succeed and block HIV 100% of the time. But then, it is time to go to human trials. They will place their cells into a human patient
 and ooooooppppsssss> the cells will die. VECTORS, folks. They lack the immunosilent vector which ENZO has. Again, I say to
 you that my years of posting to these boards has brought to light a strong point for ENZO. No one has ever seen human cells last,
 after being altered genetically and re-introduced into the human body. EVEN THE FDA AGREED WITH ME ABOUT HGTV BEING
 UNIQUE. It is not only first, it is the ONEY VECTOR MAKING THE CLAIM AND PROVING THE CLAIM RIGHT NOW. Key point,
 Children's Hospital did not discuss their vector beyond the reference to a "Mouse derived" viral vector. They have not pointed to the
 crucial milestones. They have repeated experiments which ENZO's researchers completed, long, long ago.
 

CH(((BUZZ)))II

 ENZO, only ENZO.

 Once ENZO's innovations are made public, even I could copy them. It is not impossible to mimic. Just remember this going
 forward. Others will surely come.

 I do not wish to discredit the new work, only to point out that there is NOTHING about it which is unique, over ENZO, with the
 exception of a mouse derived vector. Since they did not identify any unique characteristics about the mouse derived vector, they
 seem uninformed about what will happen to treated cells, once they are re-introduced back into a human patient.

 I would judge them to be 6-7 years behind and infringing, to boot.

 Just my opinion.

 I commend them for their work. But I question also, the timing? ENZO has been at the same fundamental effort for about 7 years
 now, and ENZO has been published quite prominently in the Journal of Virology. And lets not forge the 7th Annual Retrovirus
 Conference. So who would break such news now? And why? Hmmmmmmm?

 ENZO's Patents will start at the reverse transcription of a target gene and work through multi-targeting, U-1 packaging and finally,
 the perfect vector. I think the Patent issue is so insurmountable, the copy cat work (inadvertant or deliberate) is totally doomed.
 Certainly moreso, than if only one Patent or two Patents were at issue. I think there will be no less than 4 key Patents, each
 teaching something very broad and unique.

 GENETIC ANTISENSE
 MULTI-TARGETING
 U-1 PACKAGING
 PERFECT VECTOR

 And this time, if the courts are seeking enablement, they walk, they talk and they have names! 8 of them!

 Sincerely,

 Larry Glaser

 One last point

 In the pure sense, what if 100 different groups were making breaking announcements every day, day after day, along the lines of
 using Genetic Antisense and vectors to block diseases?

 Whould this be bad or good for ENZO?

 Well, the public would come to question who was first? Who is best? WHO HAS THE PATENTS?

 I think this news, properly read, is GREAT for ENZO and I wish there was more like it.

 Children's Hospital in Los Angeles, also ended similar trials about 1 year ago. Remember? They were human trials. I think the
 gene blocked was rev and the vector was adenoviral. Just a reminder that these parallel efforts are not without precedent.

 Sincerely,

 Larry Glaser