Grammar errors or secret messages? Sorry for th
Post# of 155133
(Total Views: 557)
Posted On: 10/20/2020 12:06:32 AM
Grammar errors or secret messages?
Sorry for this post
Guess i just have too much free time on my hands.
Well, today's press release looks another CYDY bungle to me.
But its just a grammar bungle, so no problem.
Today's press release suggests that CYDY will discus the DSMCs "recommendations", plural.
That appears to me to be a grammar error.
Typically DSMCs get to recommend exactly one of the four following:
1) safety stop
2) futility stop
3) efficacy stop
4) continue to end
So today's press release looks to me like a grammar error.
The DSMC gave one recommendation, but CYDY says it was "recommendations" plural. Grammar error.
On the other hand, this is the second consecutive CYDY press release with bad grammar, and not only that but the grammar error includes the same word: "recommendations".
CYDY's Thursday last week press release:
Management will discuss the recommendations of the Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) following their review of the interim analysis of the first 195 patients enrolled in the Company’s Phase 2b/3 clinical trial for patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 indications, including a potential regulatory path forward.
At first glance, it seems like "including a potential regulatory path forward" should have been a separate subject-verb thingy, like a sentence. It should have said:
After discussing the DSMC recommendations, CYDY will discuss "regulatory paths forward".
But what if the grammar is actually correct, and the prase "including a potential regulatory path forward" modifies the noun "recommendations"?
In that case the DSMC is providing "recommdations for a regulatory path forward".
So as long as I have gone off the deep end, might as well swim around a bit.
DSMCs do not provide recommendations for regulatory paths. DSMCs only get one recommendation, and it has to be picked from the list of four above.
However, in this case we do have Dr. Seethamraju's statement that the FDA was reviewing the unblinded data in concert with the DSMC.
So if the FDA did have a "recommendation for a regulatory path forward" they could have given that to the DSMC, and hence in addition to one picked from the list of four, the DSMC can also forward the FDA's regulatory path, which makes two recommendations, plural.
If this was a math problem it would be 1+1=2, QED.
But its just the gibberish rantings of someone with way too much time on their hands.
Sorry for this post
Guess i just have too much free time on my hands. Well, today's press release looks another CYDY bungle to me.
But its just a grammar bungle, so no problem.
Today's press release suggests that CYDY will discus the DSMCs "recommendations", plural.
That appears to me to be a grammar error.
Typically DSMCs get to recommend exactly one of the four following:
1) safety stop
2) futility stop
3) efficacy stop
4) continue to end
So today's press release looks to me like a grammar error.
The DSMC gave one recommendation, but CYDY says it was "recommendations" plural. Grammar error.
On the other hand, this is the second consecutive CYDY press release with bad grammar, and not only that but the grammar error includes the same word: "recommendations".
CYDY's Thursday last week press release:
Management will discuss the recommendations of the Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) following their review of the interim analysis of the first 195 patients enrolled in the Company’s Phase 2b/3 clinical trial for patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 indications, including a potential regulatory path forward.
At first glance, it seems like "including a potential regulatory path forward" should have been a separate subject-verb thingy, like a sentence. It should have said:
After discussing the DSMC recommendations, CYDY will discuss "regulatory paths forward".
But what if the grammar is actually correct, and the prase "including a potential regulatory path forward" modifies the noun "recommendations"?
In that case the DSMC is providing "recommdations for a regulatory path forward".
So as long as I have gone off the deep end, might as well swim around a bit.
DSMCs do not provide recommendations for regulatory paths. DSMCs only get one recommendation, and it has to be picked from the list of four above.
However, in this case we do have Dr. Seethamraju's statement that the FDA was reviewing the unblinded data in concert with the DSMC.
So if the FDA did have a "recommendation for a regulatory path forward" they could have given that to the DSMC, and hence in addition to one picked from the list of four, the DSMC can also forward the FDA's regulatory path, which makes two recommendations, plural.
If this was a math problem it would be 1+1=2, QED.
But its just the gibberish rantings of someone with way too much time on their hands.
(3)
(1)