Quote:

---

A single arm for leronlimab would not be mandatory

---

This is great, so the trial could be powered to show that combination therapy would exceed regorafenib monotherapy.

Quote:

---

The same would happen with Keytruda

---

I guess you're also saying that it would not be mandatory to pit leronlimab mono vs. keytruda mono. So, it would be permitted to trial the combination therapy vs. keytruda alone. But, if this went to statistical significance, it would only add to existing keytruda sales for the next 3 or 4 years and would not benefit Merck towards extending Keytruda's reign.

Quote:

---

Any big pharma company funding a trial with us would want to control the partner drug. If they didn't have a buyout offer tied to the results of the trial then they're just dumb. As a contingent offer it would not have to be announced by Cytodyn until it became a solid offer.

---

Let's say it wasn't Merck sponsoring the MD Anderson trial. For that matter, let's say it is not Bayer sponsoring the MD Anderson CRC trial. Let's say it is MD Anderson sponsoring the CRC trial.

First off, what would be MD Anderson's incentive to agree to do a MD Anderson sponsored and funded medium sized 3-400 patient mCRC trial with either keytruda or regorafenib as combination with leronlimab? The data would belong to MD Anderson. Then, if the results turned out to be statistically significant, what would be the expected next step? For Bayer or Merck to buy out CytoDyn? But how did MD Anderson benefit? or for a partnership b/w CytoDyn and Merck or Bayer, but still, how does MD Anderson benefit by agreeing to fully fund such a trial?