I can't read the entire article as it's behind a paywall so take my commentary with that caveat. But the article begins:
If the article continues in this vein then it is hard to see it as anything other than a rehash of Jeff Manning's article on the Oregonian.
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2021/07/v...laims.html
They both start with the same premises, "HIV drug pushed for COVID" As we know, we are just a wee bit more than an HIV drug. And "pushed for COVID" Has there been any drug that hasn't been "pushed for COVID"? I mean, we are in the middle of a pandemic. They have thrown the kitchen sink at this virus. I think many of us here would argue that we were pushed for COVID with a superior scientific rationale when compared to many of the other drugs tried! If CCR5 is central to the trafficking of the immune response why wouldn't it make sense to try it in a disease that has universally been categorized as immune chaos? And while we didn't meet our primary endpoints, I would argue that Leronlimab showed more promise than any drug out there when it came to saving lives in the critical patient population. Did they do any due diligence in terms of the patients that have come out as having benefited from taking leronlimab while having COVID?
Perhaps Mr. Manning and Mr. Mast aren't well versed in biotech? Let's check. Mr Manning got his BA in Journalism and has been a reporter at the Oregonian for 27 years. Mr. Mast received his degree from Northwestern University where he covered politics. He then worked for Bloomberg BNA where he covered taxes and politics for a few months. He edited manuscripts for a history professor at Northwestern and then progressed to being an editor at Endpoint News. What qualifies either of these reporters to cover biotech? At best, they are beholden to the subject matter experts they interview and at least in the case of Mr. Manning, he chose not to do so.
Furthermore, there is no lazier form of reporting in my humble opinion than republishing a PR or financial document. Positive or negative this seems like nothing more than a means of using someone else's news to draw views to your site. Again, I don't know if Mr. Mast dug deeper than Mr. Manning as I can't see the full article but did he interview the company? The SEC? The DOJ? Other subject matter experts? Mr. Manning did not. He just cherry picked quotes from the company's 10-K risk section. Sadly, he must have glossed over the many positive items in the 10-K. Was that intentional? Who knows, but it certainly comes across as starting with a negative bias. In fact, in my opinion, it's hard to even fathom someone sifting through our 10K, ignoring all the positive information regarding cancer, NASH, HIV and only honing in on the litigation section without having a goal of shaming the company. Cancer...blah...blah...blah...HIV...blah blah blah...NASH...blah blah blah...Litigation...here we go. Really???
So, I would agree that we do need stronger ammunition to fend off those with nefarious intent. We need validation from a well known trusted 3rd party so these "writers" will have to invalidate those parties in order to defame us. But could you read that 203 page 10-K and walk away with nothing other than the SEC/DOJ lawsuits? Suspect to say the least!
Quote:CytoDyn, a one-time penny stock that has gained both money and notoriety for aggressively pushing an old HIV drug as a treatment for Covid-19, disclosed in a regulatory filing Friday the SEC and DOJ have separately subpoenaed the company and “certain of its executives” as part of investigations into the company’s promotion and marketing practices.
If the article continues in this vein then it is hard to see it as anything other than a rehash of Jeff Manning's article on the Oregonian.
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2021/07/v...laims.html
They both start with the same premises, "HIV drug pushed for COVID" As we know, we are just a wee bit more than an HIV drug. And "pushed for COVID" Has there been any drug that hasn't been "pushed for COVID"? I mean, we are in the middle of a pandemic. They have thrown the kitchen sink at this virus. I think many of us here would argue that we were pushed for COVID with a superior scientific rationale when compared to many of the other drugs tried! If CCR5 is central to the trafficking of the immune response why wouldn't it make sense to try it in a disease that has universally been categorized as immune chaos? And while we didn't meet our primary endpoints, I would argue that Leronlimab showed more promise than any drug out there when it came to saving lives in the critical patient population. Did they do any due diligence in terms of the patients that have come out as having benefited from taking leronlimab while having COVID?
Perhaps Mr. Manning and Mr. Mast aren't well versed in biotech? Let's check. Mr Manning got his BA in Journalism and has been a reporter at the Oregonian for 27 years. Mr. Mast received his degree from Northwestern University where he covered politics. He then worked for Bloomberg BNA where he covered taxes and politics for a few months. He edited manuscripts for a history professor at Northwestern and then progressed to being an editor at Endpoint News. What qualifies either of these reporters to cover biotech? At best, they are beholden to the subject matter experts they interview and at least in the case of Mr. Manning, he chose not to do so.
Furthermore, there is no lazier form of reporting in my humble opinion than republishing a PR or financial document. Positive or negative this seems like nothing more than a means of using someone else's news to draw views to your site. Again, I don't know if Mr. Mast dug deeper than Mr. Manning as I can't see the full article but did he interview the company? The SEC? The DOJ? Other subject matter experts? Mr. Manning did not. He just cherry picked quotes from the company's 10-K risk section. Sadly, he must have glossed over the many positive items in the 10-K. Was that intentional? Who knows, but it certainly comes across as starting with a negative bias. In fact, in my opinion, it's hard to even fathom someone sifting through our 10K, ignoring all the positive information regarding cancer, NASH, HIV and only honing in on the litigation section without having a goal of shaming the company. Cancer...blah...blah...blah...HIV...blah blah blah...NASH...blah blah blah...Litigation...here we go. Really???
So, I would agree that we do need stronger ammunition to fend off those with nefarious intent. We need validation from a well known trusted 3rd party so these "writers" will have to invalidate those parties in order to defame us. But could you read that 203 page 10-K and walk away with nothing other than the SEC/DOJ lawsuits? Suspect to say the least!
21
