He was referencing the New England Journal article
Post# of 153832
(Total Views: 592)
Posted On: 04/25/2020 1:14:49 PM
He was referencing the New England Journal article, correct? I’m going off my memory from reading it yesterday, but I thought it was a fairly benign, but if anything slightly promising mention of Leronlimab. The problem is if you don’t know anything about CYDY and Leronlimab you could easily dismiss it as negative.
I’d have to pull it back up but I believe it said 5 patients got Leronlimab and at day 3 there was only immunologic markers improvement but no change in their intubation status. That alone doesn’t mean one way or another that they eventually got better or got worse. We know (based on comments by Drs Patterson and Lalazari from calls and interviews) that at day 3 there is improvement and by day 7 most patients are seeing a full return to immunologic homeostasis. These are the sickest of the sick so it would make sense that there was significant improvement but in only three days they still hadn’t come back from the brink far enough to come off of vents. It would be good to see the 7 day levels, number of patients off or on reduced ventilation/oxygen needs, and certainly the number who got worse. I believe in this case the wording is unfortunately and unintentionally misleading. After all, it wasn’t a paper designed to explain the full treatment picture of Leronlimab. It was to look at what was happening with those specific transplant patients. I have no doubt, based on the repeated request at Montefiore for more Leronlimab and the anecdotal evidence told to us this far, that Lero was successful at that hospital. If they write a Leronlimab specific paper (and it kind of sounds like they will be since we are to discuss “2 journal articles” on Monday and NP has said one is montefiore’s article) I would expect to see a very positive article. That last one isn’t really about us, but I could be wrong about that part. Perhaps that was all we are going to get out of them.
I’d have to pull it back up but I believe it said 5 patients got Leronlimab and at day 3 there was only immunologic markers improvement but no change in their intubation status. That alone doesn’t mean one way or another that they eventually got better or got worse. We know (based on comments by Drs Patterson and Lalazari from calls and interviews) that at day 3 there is improvement and by day 7 most patients are seeing a full return to immunologic homeostasis. These are the sickest of the sick so it would make sense that there was significant improvement but in only three days they still hadn’t come back from the brink far enough to come off of vents. It would be good to see the 7 day levels, number of patients off or on reduced ventilation/oxygen needs, and certainly the number who got worse. I believe in this case the wording is unfortunately and unintentionally misleading. After all, it wasn’t a paper designed to explain the full treatment picture of Leronlimab. It was to look at what was happening with those specific transplant patients. I have no doubt, based on the repeated request at Montefiore for more Leronlimab and the anecdotal evidence told to us this far, that Lero was successful at that hospital. If they write a Leronlimab specific paper (and it kind of sounds like they will be since we are to discuss “2 journal articles” on Monday and NP has said one is montefiore’s article) I would expect to see a very positive article. That last one isn’t really about us, but I could be wrong about that part. Perhaps that was all we are going to get out of them.
(2)
(0)