(Total Views: 535)
Posted On: 05/18/2024 8:34:41 PM
Post# of 148870
Re: KenChowder #143356
Ken: Your point that NIH would be a "funder", not a "partner", is very astute. However, in fairness to MGK's theory, it strikes me as plausible that Dr Jay could have been using "partner" in a more generic sense in his letter, in order not to reveal too much.
MGK makes a pretty convincing argument (at least to me) that Cyrus had a LL/Keyruda clinical trial for CRC set to go at MD Anderson when it was suddenly scrapped by our BOD. If true, that would suggest that MRK felt that Keytruda's efficacy could be enhanced by LL (contrary to ohm's convincing argument otherwise). But if CYDY has now reversed course on a LL/K trial, why? What has changed since the same proposal was scrapped 18 months ago?
That leaves the possibility that the coming CRC trial will be LL alone, with funding from NIH, MRK, the arbitration settlement (but that could be 6 months away), or a presently unknown source.
However this jigsaw puzzle plays out, I just hope it's sooner than later. and that Dr Jay and the BOD have LL on the right path, finally.
MGK makes a pretty convincing argument (at least to me) that Cyrus had a LL/Keyruda clinical trial for CRC set to go at MD Anderson when it was suddenly scrapped by our BOD. If true, that would suggest that MRK felt that Keytruda's efficacy could be enhanced by LL (contrary to ohm's convincing argument otherwise). But if CYDY has now reversed course on a LL/K trial, why? What has changed since the same proposal was scrapped 18 months ago?
That leaves the possibility that the coming CRC trial will be LL alone, with funding from NIH, MRK, the arbitration settlement (but that could be 6 months away), or a presently unknown source.
However this jigsaw puzzle plays out, I just hope it's sooner than later. and that Dr Jay and the BOD have LL on the right path, finally.
(13)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
