(Total Views: 750)
Posted On: 11/13/2020 8:45:15 AM
Post# of 154975
Kabonk,
Without revisiting the subject for the "wrong" reasons the L.H. indication is something we need to pursue aggressively, this because we can help a large, suffering population, and, also because there is a large market with potential competition.
Dr. Patterson (I agree with you, pity he is not in the team) is already validating CCR5 as a key participant on the disease. Has defined a Long Hauler Index to quantify how sick a person is, and, obviously, to measure improvement and treatment (drug) effectiveness.
The paper addressing this will be published next week. The point here is that we should be paying attention to his Index and the results obtained with Maraviroc (which Patterson unfortunately is using) IN THE DESIGN OF OUR TRIAL both, in defining the gravity (enrollment criteria) and the results of the treatment (end point(s)).
BP is not in our team but nothing wrong in benefiting from results already obtained to fine-tune our, I hope, quick trial.
We have a very good possibility of success here as the science is there, and now, with preliminary results obtained by Dr. Patterson is being proved. What we need to do is differentiate ourselves from other CCR5 antagonists (secondary effects and so on) to be able to compete once given EUA or approval.
Man, I would happily give BP (as in the doctor) few million shares to bring him in, however he has been indirectly "working" for us by validating and structuring the LH indication and treatment.
Without revisiting the subject for the "wrong" reasons the L.H. indication is something we need to pursue aggressively, this because we can help a large, suffering population, and, also because there is a large market with potential competition.
Dr. Patterson (I agree with you, pity he is not in the team) is already validating CCR5 as a key participant on the disease. Has defined a Long Hauler Index to quantify how sick a person is, and, obviously, to measure improvement and treatment (drug) effectiveness.
The paper addressing this will be published next week. The point here is that we should be paying attention to his Index and the results obtained with Maraviroc (which Patterson unfortunately is using) IN THE DESIGN OF OUR TRIAL both, in defining the gravity (enrollment criteria) and the results of the treatment (end point(s)).
BP is not in our team but nothing wrong in benefiting from results already obtained to fine-tune our, I hope, quick trial.
We have a very good possibility of success here as the science is there, and now, with preliminary results obtained by Dr. Patterson is being proved. What we need to do is differentiate ourselves from other CCR5 antagonists (secondary effects and so on) to be able to compete once given EUA or approval.
Man, I would happily give BP (as in the doctor) few million shares to bring him in, however he has been indirectly "working" for us by validating and structuring the LH indication and treatment.
(13)
(0)
