Two things removed a ton of doubts for me. First, the RANTES paper put some enticing science behind the anecdotes and put some meaning onto the adjectives we'd been hearing from NP and BP. Second, the pivot to manufacturing is palpable and, I believe, sincere.
I tend not to be impressed with things like "most had reduced IL-6" or "10 removed from ventilators or improving." If an obvious advocate is spouting adjectives that fall short of a clear quantitative account, my first read is in the least charitable way that still assumes they are not lying. E.g., "most had reduced IL-6" is utterly meaningless because IL-6 fluctuates naturally from day-to-day, measurement to measurement. If you measure it now and measure it later yet nothing happens in the meantime, 50-50 chance it is lower the second time. Or "10 removed from ventilators or improving" is again meaningless. It could mean 0 removed from ventilators, 5 had trivially lower IL-6, and 5 others had trivially higher CD8. Or it could mean 9 removed from ventilators and 1 other had significantly reduced inflammation and measurably improved oxygen exchange. Specifics matter, and the figs in the RANTES paper are jaw-dropping in a way that a constant stream of adjectives can never be.
Regarding manufacturing, these guys obviously know WAY more about where the company stands than I do, and they are very confident that approvals will come in a timely manner. Having enough product on hand to meet anticipated demand is crucial. At the same time, the trials (which I would have guessed would be the biggest "challenge"
seem to be coming together nicely after a somewhat sluggish start in enrollments.
My average price was less than $1 before the past week or two (tough to tell exactly because I've done my share of round-tripping), but some of short-induced dips at the same time as some significant doubts were cleared put me in a buying mood.
I tend not to be impressed with things like "most had reduced IL-6" or "10 removed from ventilators or improving." If an obvious advocate is spouting adjectives that fall short of a clear quantitative account, my first read is in the least charitable way that still assumes they are not lying. E.g., "most had reduced IL-6" is utterly meaningless because IL-6 fluctuates naturally from day-to-day, measurement to measurement. If you measure it now and measure it later yet nothing happens in the meantime, 50-50 chance it is lower the second time. Or "10 removed from ventilators or improving" is again meaningless. It could mean 0 removed from ventilators, 5 had trivially lower IL-6, and 5 others had trivially higher CD8. Or it could mean 9 removed from ventilators and 1 other had significantly reduced inflammation and measurably improved oxygen exchange. Specifics matter, and the figs in the RANTES paper are jaw-dropping in a way that a constant stream of adjectives can never be.
Regarding manufacturing, these guys obviously know WAY more about where the company stands than I do, and they are very confident that approvals will come in a timely manner. Having enough product on hand to meet anticipated demand is crucial. At the same time, the trials (which I would have guessed would be the biggest "challenge"
seem to be coming together nicely after a somewhat sluggish start in enrollments. My average price was less than $1 before the past week or two (tough to tell exactly because I've done my share of round-tripping), but some of short-induced dips at the same time as some significant doubts were cleared put me in a buying mood.
