Seems to me that the worst case of all is if entit
Post# of 154980
(Total Views: 644)
Posted On: 05/27/2021 8:22:13 PM
Re: 2MartiniGi #91880
Seems to me that the worst case of all is if entities other than CYDY are designing CYDY human trials.
If entities other than CYDY are designing CYDY human trials, thats a problem that improved CYDY management could fix.
I think CYDY management needs improvement, but I don't think CYDY management is so inept that some other third party is designing CYDY human trials.
The decision to use 350 mg doses in the Brazil sever trial certainly seems like a mistake, given that CD12 failure may have been primarily cause by too low of a dose.
I think the most likely reason for 350 mg is that CYDY has a good, although unpublished, reason for 350 mg.
If the reason for 350 mg is third party design or CYDY forgot CD12 failed because too low of a dose, then the Rosenbaum group is going to have a much easier time making changes than they anticipated.
While I would blame Pourhassan for many mistakes, I cannot blame him for two doses instead of four on CD12. That decision was made in a time of total turmoil and chaos. The advocate for four doses would have to have been a bioengineer, not Pourhassan. If data was available on four doses, whoever knew about that data should have been the champion for four doses.
If entities other than CYDY are designing CYDY human trials, thats a problem that improved CYDY management could fix.
I think CYDY management needs improvement, but I don't think CYDY management is so inept that some other third party is designing CYDY human trials.
The decision to use 350 mg doses in the Brazil sever trial certainly seems like a mistake, given that CD12 failure may have been primarily cause by too low of a dose.
I think the most likely reason for 350 mg is that CYDY has a good, although unpublished, reason for 350 mg.
If the reason for 350 mg is third party design or CYDY forgot CD12 failed because too low of a dose, then the Rosenbaum group is going to have a much easier time making changes than they anticipated.
While I would blame Pourhassan for many mistakes, I cannot blame him for two doses instead of four on CD12. That decision was made in a time of total turmoil and chaos. The advocate for four doses would have to have been a bioengineer, not Pourhassan. If data was available on four doses, whoever knew about that data should have been the champion for four doses.
(2)
(0)