Here is another one that irritates me. "-CD16 -
Post# of 155052
(Total Views: 512)
Posted On: 03/23/2021 11:17:02 PM
Here is another one that irritates me.
"-CD16 - Slam dunk trial will take care of the above if not granted sooner "
I thought I heard CD12 was a slam dunk.
Based on the under CD12 under 65 data, CD16 certainly appears a slam dunk.
And every bar chart provided in the 8k looks like success. Surely CD16 must be a slam dunk.
One bar chart not provided in the 8K was the bar chart for the 75 non-miTT patients.
Good think that bar chart wasn't in there because when placebo mortality is 15% and leronlimab mortality is 30% it doesn't look good for leronlimab.
Again, maybe I am just the last to know, but why exactly are the 75 non-miTT patients somehow less representative of efficacy than the 309 miTT patients?
With the exception of dexamethasone, all of the other covid therapies are almost totally ineffective.
How does it make sense to bifurcate the subgroups by an avalanche of useless therapies?
And in the case of dexamethasone, that has been hypothetically offered as a contraindicator for leronlimab use because the effect of LL is diminshed by the prior action of dexamethasone.
My own personal opinion is that we know with 100% certainty that leronlimab works very effectively for at least some patients. The long term ECMO recoveries demonstrate that beyond very little shadow of a doubt.
What I don't understand is why the CYDY team is unable to conclusively demonstrate that result.
What I fear is that Patterson has lab data which might demonstrate that result but CYDY doesn't want to pay Patterson for the data.
Probs I am just the last to know
What I can
"-CD16 - Slam dunk trial will take care of the above if not granted sooner "
I thought I heard CD12 was a slam dunk.
Based on the under CD12 under 65 data, CD16 certainly appears a slam dunk.
And every bar chart provided in the 8k looks like success. Surely CD16 must be a slam dunk.
One bar chart not provided in the 8K was the bar chart for the 75 non-miTT patients.
Good think that bar chart wasn't in there because when placebo mortality is 15% and leronlimab mortality is 30% it doesn't look good for leronlimab.
Again, maybe I am just the last to know, but why exactly are the 75 non-miTT patients somehow less representative of efficacy than the 309 miTT patients?
With the exception of dexamethasone, all of the other covid therapies are almost totally ineffective.
How does it make sense to bifurcate the subgroups by an avalanche of useless therapies?
And in the case of dexamethasone, that has been hypothetically offered as a contraindicator for leronlimab use because the effect of LL is diminshed by the prior action of dexamethasone.
My own personal opinion is that we know with 100% certainty that leronlimab works very effectively for at least some patients. The long term ECMO recoveries demonstrate that beyond very little shadow of a doubt.
What I don't understand is why the CYDY team is unable to conclusively demonstrate that result.
What I fear is that Patterson has lab data which might demonstrate that result but CYDY doesn't want to pay Patterson for the data.
Probs I am just the last to know
What I can
(2)
(1)