The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
One side will recognize a cancer cell and the other side will recognize a T- cell and essentially bring these things together so that you get the T- cell action locally to the cancer cell without having to do any genetic mod modification to the T- cell.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So I talked about okay we can genetically put an antibbody fragment on a T- cell and use that to direct a T- cell to a cancer. People are also making antibodies that are antibodies on both ends. Okay. So this is sometimes I think this is a proprietary term but it can be called a bispcific or a bite.