(Total Views: 572)
Posted On: 08/12/2020 10:42:05 AM
Post# of 148870
Just emailed blafarm comments to Nader.
[..]
I was watching Dr. Yo's interview with Dr. Patterson last night (Dr. Patterson Discusses Leronlimab Phase 2 Results), and somewhere in the interview, Dr. Patterson mentioned that we didn't collect the viral load, but we can do it, or something along that line.
Dr. Patterson Discusses Leronlimab Phase 2 Results
Play
To me seemed very sloppy, that why he wouldn't do such important this, as since very early stages, he is saying Leronlimab reduces the viral load.
Today, on investors hangout, blafarm, a very knowledgeable user posted the below comment, which I wanted to bring it to you attention. Bruce seems to somehow trying to get the message out that the viral load data is there but it not included for some reason, in case you haven't watched his last night's interview.
Posted On: 08/12/2020 10:15:07 AM
Posted By: blafarm
Just tying-off some loose ends:
Last night Dr.BP disclosed that a viral load assay was indeed not run for the M/M trial because it wasn't in the protocol. He did say that it could be run now, but it requires a 0.5 ml sample. He indicated that IncellDx had meticulously stored all of the samples from the trials, and I got the impression it could be run, but someone was going to have to pay for it.
It's easy to understand why viral load was not included, not only is this a M/M cohort that might not show a dramatic increase or decrease in viral load, but the M/M protocol was very possibly drafted before the notion of viral load was brought to the forefront.
And since viral load isn't in the S/C protocol either, it looks like we won't be able to tell that part of the story to the FDA. Actually, in spite of Dr.NP saying that Dr.BP was running labs for both the M/M and S/C trials, the S/C protocol does not include the any of the Dr.BP assays that can be found in the M/M protocol. I find this to be a bit troubling because the endpoints seem quite binary and uninformative in terms of shedding light on the MOA.
[...]
Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=585...z6Uumj8uBT
[..]
I was watching Dr. Yo's interview with Dr. Patterson last night (Dr. Patterson Discusses Leronlimab Phase 2 Results), and somewhere in the interview, Dr. Patterson mentioned that we didn't collect the viral load, but we can do it, or something along that line.
Dr. Patterson Discusses Leronlimab Phase 2 Results
Play
To me seemed very sloppy, that why he wouldn't do such important this, as since very early stages, he is saying Leronlimab reduces the viral load.
Today, on investors hangout, blafarm, a very knowledgeable user posted the below comment, which I wanted to bring it to you attention. Bruce seems to somehow trying to get the message out that the viral load data is there but it not included for some reason, in case you haven't watched his last night's interview.
Posted On: 08/12/2020 10:15:07 AM
Posted By: blafarm
Just tying-off some loose ends:
Last night Dr.BP disclosed that a viral load assay was indeed not run for the M/M trial because it wasn't in the protocol. He did say that it could be run now, but it requires a 0.5 ml sample. He indicated that IncellDx had meticulously stored all of the samples from the trials, and I got the impression it could be run, but someone was going to have to pay for it.
It's easy to understand why viral load was not included, not only is this a M/M cohort that might not show a dramatic increase or decrease in viral load, but the M/M protocol was very possibly drafted before the notion of viral load was brought to the forefront.
And since viral load isn't in the S/C protocol either, it looks like we won't be able to tell that part of the story to the FDA. Actually, in spite of Dr.NP saying that Dr.BP was running labs for both the M/M and S/C trials, the S/C protocol does not include the any of the Dr.BP assays that can be found in the M/M protocol. I find this to be a bit troubling because the endpoints seem quite binary and uninformative in terms of shedding light on the MOA.
[...]
Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=585...z6Uumj8uBT
(3)
(1)Scroll down for more posts ▼
