Wrong. This is filled with innuendo and inaccuraci
Post# of 72444
(Total Views: 424)
Posted On: 05/17/2021 5:01:32 PM
Wrong. This is filled with innuendo and inaccuracies.
The FDA refused to let CYDY do the clinical trial as they wanted to -- using 4 doses. They limited them to 2 doses.
At 14 days, there was a clear benefit in mortality. Then, the patients weren't allowed to keep getting the drug, and they crashed.
Then the FDA talks about "poor trial design."
Also -- their clinical trial "safety committee" allowed most of the really sick older patients to be put in the drug group, and the younger, less vulnerable patients were given placebo. Why, you ask, would they do that?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that scientists from GILEAD were appointed to help oversee this drug trial?
Despite all this, when the data are analyzed, there was a CLEAR mortality improvement that just barely missed statistical significance, by one patient, when adjusted for age and risk factors. The FDA makes snide comments about subsets of data, but they don't mention that they routinely have allowed Big Pharma to CHANGE THE ENDPOINTS mid-trial when it appeared that the BP drugs weren't working. And shall we talk about Remdesivir, which has no mortality benefit whatsoever, but was granted EUA?
It is unheard of for the FDA to put something like this out. If you think that they did this for purely scientific reasons, then I would like to discuss your upcoming purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge.
And if you think that IPIX couldn't be attacked like this....
The FDA refused to let CYDY do the clinical trial as they wanted to -- using 4 doses. They limited them to 2 doses.
At 14 days, there was a clear benefit in mortality. Then, the patients weren't allowed to keep getting the drug, and they crashed.
Then the FDA talks about "poor trial design."
Also -- their clinical trial "safety committee" allowed most of the really sick older patients to be put in the drug group, and the younger, less vulnerable patients were given placebo. Why, you ask, would they do that?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that scientists from GILEAD were appointed to help oversee this drug trial?
Despite all this, when the data are analyzed, there was a CLEAR mortality improvement that just barely missed statistical significance, by one patient, when adjusted for age and risk factors. The FDA makes snide comments about subsets of data, but they don't mention that they routinely have allowed Big Pharma to CHANGE THE ENDPOINTS mid-trial when it appeared that the BP drugs weren't working. And shall we talk about Remdesivir, which has no mortality benefit whatsoever, but was granted EUA?
It is unheard of for the FDA to put something like this out. If you think that they did this for purely scientific reasons, then I would like to discuss your upcoming purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge.
And if you think that IPIX couldn't be attacked like this....
(10)
(0)