Dr. L's video, to me, didn't seem to reveal much n

Dr. L's video, to me, didn't seem to reveal much new information. It's primarily a backwards looking video attempting to get his NIH colleagues up to speed on what we already know.

Known already (stated in the video):
-LL works for HIV
-LL is safe
-Cytodyn has high ambitions for LL in multiple indications that are ultimately TBD
-FDA didn't understand LL's MOA or what was needed to save lives with Covid early on - as a result it led to many hurdles for Cytodyn including handcuffing them at 2 doses
-Amarex and/or mgmt dropped the ball re: age stratification in CD12
-CD12, if powered properly, likely would have cleared the hurdle even w/o age stratification (because...it works...duh)
-Nader doesn't have a medical background or communicate particularly effectively
-It would be nice if the government threw Cytodyn a bone (presumably in the form of grants)

New (to me at least):
-Nader didn't want to do IV for CD10/12 (however - IMO - speculation only - recall Brazil hold-up was to test safety / administration of LL in IV form - maybe Nader wanted to get the trial going asap - anyway 700mg at 4 doses w/ age stratification would have likely been enough regardless)

So I'm honestly not sure, other than reliving frustrating moments over the past 1.5-2 years, what this video revealed that all of us don't already know or surmised.

Sounded more like Jay was frustrated with the missteps over the past few years and vents some of this towards Nader, some at the FDA (though seems to indicate it was due to lack of knowledge, not evil intentions), and some at himself (for not pushing even harder re: 4 doses).

All that matters is where we are today:
-Solidifying the board which aids in building credibility
-Playing by the rules (no more promotional propaganda) - also helps re: credibility
-Getting our data in order (-->HIV BLA?)
-Conserving cash
-Actively looking for partnerships to be able to run powered trials
-Publishing peer-reviewed articles (aids in credibility)
-The drug is still safe and still works - for many indications

All signs point to a company shoring things up after lessons learned and with a molecule this important and this effective, it won't go away...

I am confident that if we had the ability to run trials like big pharma does, this thing would be such a slam dunk in so many areas it's ridiculous...(we have yet to "fail" a trial due to ineffectiveness - it's been trial design & power).

The risk here, imo, is not that LL doesn't work in many indications, it's financial. And there's a reason why they are able to continuously raise money. And again, I'm fine with 1bn shares out there, even more, when I know what the future potential is.