So, my thinking is that CytoDyn would be best off
Post# of 153903
(Total Views: 690)
Posted On: 05/07/2022 4:44:46 PM
Re: Goosebumps #122952
So, my thinking is that CytoDyn would be best off doing combination therapy/adjuvant therapy for majority of indications at least for the foreseeable next couple of years.
By taking this approach, we can rely upon the partner to do the leg work of the trials and take up the costs involved. We just are brought along to make their trials successful, with the addition of LL to their therapy. The partnerships we establish should be maintained at least until their drug goes generic, which is usually about 7 years.
By then, the majority of patients / doctors will know that it is LL that is really curing the patient and when the drug becomes unbranded/generic, the doctors will likely only prescribe LL for that indication.
We are in a bind financially and need partnerships at least at this point.
We have one monotherapy HIV which we should continue to pursue, but if competes too aggressively with the combo therapy for HIV, then the qualifications for a patient to receive LL monotherapy should then be tightened.
We need a CEO who already has his connections into many big pharma companies and/or suppliers/supporters. He needs to understand the LL mechanism of action and who is able to understand how LL may be integrated into the fight along side Big Pharma's weaker stand alone drugs to fortify the assault upon their pathology.
The CEO should be rewarded on the number of or dollar value of each one of these partnerships developed under his management.
By taking this approach, we can rely upon the partner to do the leg work of the trials and take up the costs involved. We just are brought along to make their trials successful, with the addition of LL to their therapy. The partnerships we establish should be maintained at least until their drug goes generic, which is usually about 7 years.
By then, the majority of patients / doctors will know that it is LL that is really curing the patient and when the drug becomes unbranded/generic, the doctors will likely only prescribe LL for that indication.
We are in a bind financially and need partnerships at least at this point.
We have one monotherapy HIV which we should continue to pursue, but if competes too aggressively with the combo therapy for HIV, then the qualifications for a patient to receive LL monotherapy should then be tightened.
We need a CEO who already has his connections into many big pharma companies and/or suppliers/supporters. He needs to understand the LL mechanism of action and who is able to understand how LL may be integrated into the fight along side Big Pharma's weaker stand alone drugs to fortify the assault upon their pathology.
The CEO should be rewarded on the number of or dollar value of each one of these partnerships developed under his management.
(12)
(2)