A change in endpoints for a disease that isn't well understood and has no established clinical endpoints yet isn't problematic per se, and totally ok in my opinion, if advised by the independent DSMC.

However, in Gilead's case, the NIH investigators tipped off Gilead and the objectivity and relevance of "reduction of hospitalization" is questionable. Add to that the conflicting results of the Chinese study and now the huge WHO study, and it is clear that something's not right with their data.

As for CYDY: doesn't matter on what endpoint it is approved, important is that it is approved within a reasonable timeframe and able to actually help patients...