I am confused by the leornlimab cancer CTC results.
If you have zero CTCs for one year doesn't that mean that the x-rays should improve?
I guess maybe the existing metastic tumors might still be present, but at minimum shouldn't you be able to show that zero new tumors have grown?
And if you have an x-ray study that shows zero new tumors for one year, isn't it easy to compare that to the natural history of the particular kind of cancer?
If Cytodyn possesses all of that evidence, and all of the evidence is affirmative to leronlimab efficacy in metastatic cancer, why doesn't Cytodyn publish the evidence?
I fear that CTCs may be the only cancer evidence that Cytodyn possesses.
I fear a repeat of the royal mess that Cytodyn made out of their HIV BLA submission. Pourhassan doesn't know the difference between tropism and receptor occupancy. Pourhassan either didnt know that RO was holding up HIV or he didn't tell investors despite his proclamations about transparency. Pourhassan hired and fired people critical HIV people (Rahman and Patterson) who were competent in RO where Pourhassan is incompetent. Pourhassan may have hired and fired Rahman for HIV BLA problems caused by receptor occupancy.
So with cancer we have a similar situation. A technical point that CTCs are zero. An obvious deduction that if CTCs are zero then x-rays should show efficacy. But months if not more than a year of radio silence from CYDY on x-ray results. It reminds me of the HIV BLA. Months and months of "HIV BLA is going great, we are doing great, the trial was a total success" followed by the sudden emergence of RO as a "big problem". Now we have months if not more than a year of "Cancer is going great. CTCs are zero. Breakthrough Therapy meeting soon." Is this going to be followed up in six months with, "Well we didn't do the x-rays correctly." Are we going to see cancer people suddenly hired only to be fired when the x-ray results are released?
Its just incredible to me that epic success prospects are juxtaposed daily with epic management miscommunication and/or incompetence at the Cytodyn offices.
The recent $25 million raise suggests that some investor took a look and really liked what they saw. I would go so far as to say the second recent $25 million is targeted to leronlimab production. Which means that an investor came in, did a review, and invested $25 million to go directly to Samsung for more leronlimab production.
I would view such an investor investment as totally unprecedented in the history of capatalism.
The investory looks at the company. The investor sees AT LEAST $1 billion in inventory at market value. The product is sitting there on the shelf. If a purchase order came in for $1 billion, the product could be shipped out within two weeks. The investor can see that the startup is awash in ready-to-sell inventory. It would not be unreasonable to say that the startup is literally drowning in inventory because the startup has cash flow problems and yet has this massive inventory.
So the investor looks at all of this and then decides to pony up an additional $25 million FOR NO OTHER REASON than to make more inventory.
How in the heck does any investor come to this conclusion?
The only reason I can think of is that the investor looked at the inventory and decided that despite the massive inventory supply, it was somehow not enough.
For sure I am confused. Maybe the investor just liked the gang in Vancouver.
If you work at the Cytodyn offices in Vancouver, maybe success appears so certain that its just not important to vet your public comments to see if they make any sense!
If you have zero CTCs for one year doesn't that mean that the x-rays should improve?
I guess maybe the existing metastic tumors might still be present, but at minimum shouldn't you be able to show that zero new tumors have grown?
And if you have an x-ray study that shows zero new tumors for one year, isn't it easy to compare that to the natural history of the particular kind of cancer?
If Cytodyn possesses all of that evidence, and all of the evidence is affirmative to leronlimab efficacy in metastatic cancer, why doesn't Cytodyn publish the evidence?
I fear that CTCs may be the only cancer evidence that Cytodyn possesses.
I fear a repeat of the royal mess that Cytodyn made out of their HIV BLA submission. Pourhassan doesn't know the difference between tropism and receptor occupancy. Pourhassan either didnt know that RO was holding up HIV or he didn't tell investors despite his proclamations about transparency. Pourhassan hired and fired people critical HIV people (Rahman and Patterson) who were competent in RO where Pourhassan is incompetent. Pourhassan may have hired and fired Rahman for HIV BLA problems caused by receptor occupancy.
So with cancer we have a similar situation. A technical point that CTCs are zero. An obvious deduction that if CTCs are zero then x-rays should show efficacy. But months if not more than a year of radio silence from CYDY on x-ray results. It reminds me of the HIV BLA. Months and months of "HIV BLA is going great, we are doing great, the trial was a total success" followed by the sudden emergence of RO as a "big problem". Now we have months if not more than a year of "Cancer is going great. CTCs are zero. Breakthrough Therapy meeting soon." Is this going to be followed up in six months with, "Well we didn't do the x-rays correctly." Are we going to see cancer people suddenly hired only to be fired when the x-ray results are released?
Its just incredible to me that epic success prospects are juxtaposed daily with epic management miscommunication and/or incompetence at the Cytodyn offices.
The recent $25 million raise suggests that some investor took a look and really liked what they saw. I would go so far as to say the second recent $25 million is targeted to leronlimab production. Which means that an investor came in, did a review, and invested $25 million to go directly to Samsung for more leronlimab production.
I would view such an investor investment as totally unprecedented in the history of capatalism.
The investory looks at the company. The investor sees AT LEAST $1 billion in inventory at market value. The product is sitting there on the shelf. If a purchase order came in for $1 billion, the product could be shipped out within two weeks. The investor can see that the startup is awash in ready-to-sell inventory. It would not be unreasonable to say that the startup is literally drowning in inventory because the startup has cash flow problems and yet has this massive inventory.
So the investor looks at all of this and then decides to pony up an additional $25 million FOR NO OTHER REASON than to make more inventory.
How in the heck does any investor come to this conclusion?
The only reason I can think of is that the investor looked at the inventory and decided that despite the massive inventory supply, it was somehow not enough.
For sure I am confused. Maybe the investor just liked the gang in Vancouver.
If you work at the Cytodyn offices in Vancouver, maybe success appears so certain that its just not important to vet your public comments to see if they make any sense!
2
1
