ClosetInvestor, you're arguing against a position

ClosetInvestor, you're arguing against a position I don't have.

Three of your sentences talk about experimental drugs "without efficacy", "no benefit" and "no proven benefit". Who is advocating for those treatments?

I stand by this statement - "If a treatment can be deemed safe, it should be approved for emergency use even if efficacy isn't great or not demonstrated to the last dotted i and crossed t.”

The range of efficacy I am obviously talking about are those with some efficacy and decent safety results. The range is - "isn't great" (Remdesavir and convalescent plasma) to "not demonstrated to the last dotted i and crossed t" (us, Leronlimab since we haven't finished Phase 3).

We are all in the position of beggars, not choosers. Our viewpoint is biased because we know about Leronlimab with excellent safety and efficacy. But what would we want approved if Leronlimab wasn't around? My answer would be anything that was safe, sooner rather than later!

On the other side of the scales would be more death and suffering for a longer period of time.

By the way, doctors, scientists, researchers, patients and the FDA are agreeing with my logic! I just want it applied to therapies much better that Remdisavir and convalescent plasma and Regeneron's cocktail!