“No, it does NOT mean that. I agree with Doctor5
Post# of 153977
(Total Views: 488)
Posted On: 03/06/2021 9:53:08 AM
Re: HHIGambler #81235
“No, it does NOT mean that. I agree with Doctor580 that "concurrently" means they filed the additional protocol at the same time they submitted the data to the FDA.”
Let’s do the math here. Investors went crazy over the PR from 2 weeks ago because CYDY was in “confidential” talks with the FDA. Many proposed their ideas about what the talks could encompass, including EUA, supply, demand, pricing, who’s going to announce success, etc. The consensus on the board was that CYDY was communicating with at least the US FDA, if not all three. With all of that being said, you, Doctor580 and others are trying to tell me that during 2 weeks of talks with the FDA regarding the data that the FDA gave zero guidance on the path forward? There’s absolutely no logic in that train of thought. The FDA gave at least some guidance in regards to the data, which appears to be another protocol for critical patients (to get a larger N and to get the p value on mortality to stat sig).
“Perhaps you're getting a little dizzy from all of the spinning...”
Two weeks ago I made a few posts about how the primary endpoint had likely failed given NP’s PR history, the timeline to evaluate data, etc. There was no “spinning” in those posts, just logic and it turns out the primary endpoint did fail, but can trend towards significance with a larger N.
Let’s do the math here. Investors went crazy over the PR from 2 weeks ago because CYDY was in “confidential” talks with the FDA. Many proposed their ideas about what the talks could encompass, including EUA, supply, demand, pricing, who’s going to announce success, etc. The consensus on the board was that CYDY was communicating with at least the US FDA, if not all three. With all of that being said, you, Doctor580 and others are trying to tell me that during 2 weeks of talks with the FDA regarding the data that the FDA gave zero guidance on the path forward? There’s absolutely no logic in that train of thought. The FDA gave at least some guidance in regards to the data, which appears to be another protocol for critical patients (to get a larger N and to get the p value on mortality to stat sig).
“Perhaps you're getting a little dizzy from all of the spinning...”
Two weeks ago I made a few posts about how the primary endpoint had likely failed given NP’s PR history, the timeline to evaluate data, etc. There was no “spinning” in those posts, just logic and it turns out the primary endpoint did fail, but can trend towards significance with a larger N.
(6)
(0)