If there is no CCR5 RO test being performed in CD1
Post# of 153964
(Total Views: 535)
Posted On: 01/11/2021 1:56:24 PM
Re: MD VIROLOGIST #72150
If there is no CCR5 RO test being performed in CD12, then that is potentially the most massive stupid, idiotic mistake in the history of science, medicine, public health, and economics.
If CD12 obtains EUA, then its irrelevant.
But if CD12 is squishy because mortality reduction comes in at 20%, the rock solid CCR5 RO results would be very helpful to push the FDA over the fence.
The reward for CD12 EUA approval is so inconcievably, unimaginably massive. Trillions of dollars in societal economic costs. Thousands of lives at minimum.
And that's just covid!
Covid treatment of LL patients is in effect a massive human clinical trial of cancer, neuro, and everything else. Hundreds of thousands of covid patients have those other diseases.
The cancer basket trial is something like ten patients. If LL approved for covid, probably 100,000 cancer patients will be treated, perhaps all inside of six months. Its concievable covid EUA approval could make it hard to run cancer trials because so many cancer patients will have already been treated with LL!
CCR5 RO woudl have been robust for every patient.
Even though CCR5 RO is not directly dispositive of disease state or disease resolution, when combined with an excellent safety record it could prove very, very important in a squishy CD12 result.
If I am an FDA analyst reviewing CD12 for EUA, I would think: "Why did these idiots stop CCR5 RO? They want us to approve a therapeutic for milions of patients in the middle of a pandemic, and the therapeutic is based upon completely and totally original science, and they stopped testing for the new science? What were they thinking?"
The only way Pourhassan gets off the hook for a massive mistake is if he has some other biologic result that can substitute for CCR5 RO. I doubt such a biologic result exists.
If indeed no further CD12 CCR5 RO has taken place since the split with Patterson, then the reasons for the separation between Patterson and Pourhassan becomes clear.
If Patterson was asking for cash payment that CYDY did not have, then that's a good reason to stop CD12 CCR5 RO.
But Patterson did not do that.
Patterson asked to be paid in shares.
Patterson may have asked for 10 million shares.
CYDY could have easily negotiated that down to 5 million shares, probably they could have negotiated that down to 1 million shares.
At 5 million shares, its a no-brainer to continue CCR5 RO testing even if for no other reason than to prevent the market from wondering why Pattterson is no longer on the team.
We know with 100% certainty that LL helps some covid patients.
What is uncertain, for an incredibly diverse set of factors, is the particular outcome of CD12.
What is also known with 100% certainty is that CCR5 antagonism has recently been discovered to have a massive potential medicinal utility.
Obtaining covid EUA not only brings a massive cash infusion to CYDY but also immediately unlocks LL application in all of the other potential disease areas.
Pourhassan should have given Patterson the shares in order to raise the CD12 success probablility by continuing robust, uninterrupted CCR5 RO testing.
If CD12 obtains EUA, then its irrelevant.
But if CD12 is squishy because mortality reduction comes in at 20%, the rock solid CCR5 RO results would be very helpful to push the FDA over the fence.
The reward for CD12 EUA approval is so inconcievably, unimaginably massive. Trillions of dollars in societal economic costs. Thousands of lives at minimum.
And that's just covid!
Covid treatment of LL patients is in effect a massive human clinical trial of cancer, neuro, and everything else. Hundreds of thousands of covid patients have those other diseases.
The cancer basket trial is something like ten patients. If LL approved for covid, probably 100,000 cancer patients will be treated, perhaps all inside of six months. Its concievable covid EUA approval could make it hard to run cancer trials because so many cancer patients will have already been treated with LL!
CCR5 RO woudl have been robust for every patient.
Even though CCR5 RO is not directly dispositive of disease state or disease resolution, when combined with an excellent safety record it could prove very, very important in a squishy CD12 result.
If I am an FDA analyst reviewing CD12 for EUA, I would think: "Why did these idiots stop CCR5 RO? They want us to approve a therapeutic for milions of patients in the middle of a pandemic, and the therapeutic is based upon completely and totally original science, and they stopped testing for the new science? What were they thinking?"
The only way Pourhassan gets off the hook for a massive mistake is if he has some other biologic result that can substitute for CCR5 RO. I doubt such a biologic result exists.
If indeed no further CD12 CCR5 RO has taken place since the split with Patterson, then the reasons for the separation between Patterson and Pourhassan becomes clear.
If Patterson was asking for cash payment that CYDY did not have, then that's a good reason to stop CD12 CCR5 RO.
But Patterson did not do that.
Patterson asked to be paid in shares.
Patterson may have asked for 10 million shares.
CYDY could have easily negotiated that down to 5 million shares, probably they could have negotiated that down to 1 million shares.
At 5 million shares, its a no-brainer to continue CCR5 RO testing even if for no other reason than to prevent the market from wondering why Pattterson is no longer on the team.
We know with 100% certainty that LL helps some covid patients.
What is uncertain, for an incredibly diverse set of factors, is the particular outcome of CD12.
What is also known with 100% certainty is that CCR5 antagonism has recently been discovered to have a massive potential medicinal utility.
Obtaining covid EUA not only brings a massive cash infusion to CYDY but also immediately unlocks LL application in all of the other potential disease areas.
Pourhassan should have given Patterson the shares in order to raise the CD12 success probablility by continuing robust, uninterrupted CCR5 RO testing.
(2)
(2)