Here are some Aviptadil plots, courtesy of BRPA SEC filing dated Jan 27, 2021:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/17194...g26f15.jpg
BRPA's entire sec filing can be found here:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/17194...937ds4.htm
At least some portion of this data is fatally flawed as I note below.
the first-link graphs can be found on page 181, Figure 5, of the full sec filing in the second link.
the graphs from the first link above show little survival difference at 28 days between aviptadil and placebo.
However, at 77 days, aviptadil shows an 80% survival rate compared to a 5% survival rate for placebo.
The mortality reduction at 77 days is (1-(5/80)) = 94% mortality reduction.
But the aviptadil data offered in the BRPA filing is egregiously defective.
The Figure 5 graphic shows 80% survival in treatment arm at 77 days.
On the other hand, the numerical data printed immediately below the graphic, shows 15% treatment arm survival at 77 days.
Is it the graphic or the numbers underneath the graphic that are correct? They differ by almost a factor of 10.
Cytodtyn has never presented any data as screwed up as Figure 5 in the BRPA SEC filing.
Another feature of the Figure 5 data is that the mortality in the aviptadil placebo arm was 95%!
95% mortality with SOC treatment? No hospital has ever reported anything as bad as that.
Maybe the aviptadil trial only includes the sickest of the sick, perhaps even worse than the general condition of the first 10 Montefiore patients in the Leronlimab EIND.
Again I suspect just a terrible job of factual reporting by the BRPA authors. Figure 5 graphic might be correct data, but the numbers at the bottom are massively different than the numbers which were graphed.
But if the BRPA SEC filing graphic portion of Figure 5 is accurate, it says that SOC is keeping the 70% placebo patients alive at day 28 only to have all of them pass away by day 77.
To summarize, the aviptadil data from the BRPA SEC filing shows similar mortality between aviptadil and placebo at day 28, so they failed the primary endpoint.
However, between day 28 and day 77 all of the remaining placebo patients died except for one and almost all of the remaining aviptadil patients lived.
One conclusion suggested by this data is that the SOC has changed in the last year such that it takes seriously ill covid patients much longer than 28 days to die.
If that conclusion is true (highly questionable if you ask me to to the corrupted nature of Figure 5), it might affect CD12 severely.
If CD12 treatment vs. placebo mortality works the same as Figure 5 in the BRPA SEC filing, then waiting much longer than 28 days, like 60 or 70 days, has a massive effect on mortality of treatment vs. placebo.
So maybe CYDY is waiting to see if their results look like Figure 5.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/17194...g26f15.jpg
BRPA's entire sec filing can be found here:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/17194...937ds4.htm
At least some portion of this data is fatally flawed as I note below.
the first-link graphs can be found on page 181, Figure 5, of the full sec filing in the second link.
the graphs from the first link above show little survival difference at 28 days between aviptadil and placebo.
However, at 77 days, aviptadil shows an 80% survival rate compared to a 5% survival rate for placebo.
The mortality reduction at 77 days is (1-(5/80)) = 94% mortality reduction.
But the aviptadil data offered in the BRPA filing is egregiously defective.
The Figure 5 graphic shows 80% survival in treatment arm at 77 days.
On the other hand, the numerical data printed immediately below the graphic, shows 15% treatment arm survival at 77 days.
Is it the graphic or the numbers underneath the graphic that are correct? They differ by almost a factor of 10.
Cytodtyn has never presented any data as screwed up as Figure 5 in the BRPA SEC filing.
Another feature of the Figure 5 data is that the mortality in the aviptadil placebo arm was 95%!
95% mortality with SOC treatment? No hospital has ever reported anything as bad as that.
Maybe the aviptadil trial only includes the sickest of the sick, perhaps even worse than the general condition of the first 10 Montefiore patients in the Leronlimab EIND.
Again I suspect just a terrible job of factual reporting by the BRPA authors. Figure 5 graphic might be correct data, but the numbers at the bottom are massively different than the numbers which were graphed.
But if the BRPA SEC filing graphic portion of Figure 5 is accurate, it says that SOC is keeping the 70% placebo patients alive at day 28 only to have all of them pass away by day 77.
To summarize, the aviptadil data from the BRPA SEC filing shows similar mortality between aviptadil and placebo at day 28, so they failed the primary endpoint.
However, between day 28 and day 77 all of the remaining placebo patients died except for one and almost all of the remaining aviptadil patients lived.
One conclusion suggested by this data is that the SOC has changed in the last year such that it takes seriously ill covid patients much longer than 28 days to die.
If that conclusion is true (highly questionable if you ask me to to the corrupted nature of Figure 5), it might affect CD12 severely.
If CD12 treatment vs. placebo mortality works the same as Figure 5 in the BRPA SEC filing, then waiting much longer than 28 days, like 60 or 70 days, has a massive effect on mortality of treatment vs. placebo.
So maybe CYDY is waiting to see if their results look like Figure 5.
3
