Maybe LL did achieve 50% mortality reduction.
Post# of 155530
(Total Views: 618)
Posted On: 10/16/2020 8:35:08 PM
Maybe LL did achieve 50% mortality reduction.
Only reason i think it was more like 25% is because I can't see the FDA letting the trial run if mortality reduction achieved was 50%.
One thousand people die each day in the US. That's 500 per day with a treatment that reduces mortality 50%.
If the LL hit 50 and the FDA said "let it run", it seems to me that the FDA is open to some very severe criticism.
Again I am relying on Dr. Seethamraju comments that the FDA was reviewing the data.
The FDA letting it run on 50 is even more perplexing given the highly unusual facts that the FDA was in there, that Seethamraju knew about it, and Seethamraju revealed the FDA was in there.
The FDA knows, for certain, that Seethamraju is out there.
And the FDA knows, for certain, that Seethamraju will do and say whatever he damn well feels like.
Patterson is a shrinking violet compared to Seethamraju.
So LL is going to hit 50, the FDA is going to let it run, and the FDA expects Seethamraju to sit by quietly and watch?
Seethamraju moved heaven and earth to help his patients when there was zero data, zero preclinical studies, and the FDA did not even believe the drug was relevant.
No way Seethamraju will tolerate not having LL for his patients after it is proven to work!!!
My guess is that the FDA cleared their instructions to CYDY with Seethamraju before the instructions were delivered to CYDY.
Maybe the FDA cajoled Seethamraju with something like, "We have to be true to the mathematics. We have to be sure its not random chance before we treat 10,000 patients."
I can see Seethamraju as susceptible to that argument.
But I have to believe Seethamraju exctracted something from the FDA in return for his agreement.
Seethamraju is certainly not afraid of the FDA.
Question is: Is the FDA afraid of Dr. Seethamraju?
And i think all of this could happen whether mortality reduction is 25% or 50%.
Only reason i think it was more like 25% is because I can't see the FDA letting the trial run if mortality reduction achieved was 50%.
One thousand people die each day in the US. That's 500 per day with a treatment that reduces mortality 50%.
If the LL hit 50 and the FDA said "let it run", it seems to me that the FDA is open to some very severe criticism.
Again I am relying on Dr. Seethamraju comments that the FDA was reviewing the data.
The FDA letting it run on 50 is even more perplexing given the highly unusual facts that the FDA was in there, that Seethamraju knew about it, and Seethamraju revealed the FDA was in there.
The FDA knows, for certain, that Seethamraju is out there.
And the FDA knows, for certain, that Seethamraju will do and say whatever he damn well feels like.
Patterson is a shrinking violet compared to Seethamraju.
So LL is going to hit 50, the FDA is going to let it run, and the FDA expects Seethamraju to sit by quietly and watch?
Seethamraju moved heaven and earth to help his patients when there was zero data, zero preclinical studies, and the FDA did not even believe the drug was relevant.
No way Seethamraju will tolerate not having LL for his patients after it is proven to work!!!
My guess is that the FDA cleared their instructions to CYDY with Seethamraju before the instructions were delivered to CYDY.
Maybe the FDA cajoled Seethamraju with something like, "We have to be true to the mathematics. We have to be sure its not random chance before we treat 10,000 patients."
I can see Seethamraju as susceptible to that argument.
But I have to believe Seethamraju exctracted something from the FDA in return for his agreement.
Seethamraju is certainly not afraid of the FDA.
Question is: Is the FDA afraid of Dr. Seethamraju?
And i think all of this could happen whether mortality reduction is 25% or 50%.
(6)
(0)