Very interesting analysis, blafarm. Perhaps a c

Very interesting analysis, blafarm.

Perhaps a contrary point is that the entire conflict relies upon the truth of Pourhassan's claim that Vyera pricing constrains partnerships in indications other than HIV.

Is there any published information on the Vyera pricing? Probably not.

In addition, I think there is no reason to assume that Pourhassan's analysis of the Vyera constraints is correct. Pourhassan frequently makes mistakes on issues much simpler than this.

I would take exception to the notion that Scott Kelly is having positive impact. Sure he speaks more precisely than Pourhassan, but the information he provides on these calls is simply not high quality. Perhaps more than half of the time, Kelly reads an excerpt from a technical paper suggesting that leronlimab has some additional indication. Offering technical excerpts from cherry picked journal articles he looked up on google scholar is not evidence of an executive doing a good job.

Another thing that irritates me, but maybe this was Pourhassan and not Kelly, is how they keep emphasizing multiple sclerosis mouse data as a "Eureka!" moment. Half an hour on google scholar and anyone can figure out that dozens, if not hundreds, of experiments have cured mice in the mouse multiple sclerosis model. The repeated "Eurekas" only serve to suggest the CYDY science people may be in over their head.

On multiple sclerosis, cydy should be credited with the very strong positive impression obtained in some of the researchers in the MS mouse studies. But they should explain why these researchers were so happy when so many people have cured MS in mice only to go on to no effect in humans. What is special about the CYDY MS mouse experiments?