i would have agreed with Nader. IV wasn't necessa

i would have agreed with Nader. IV wasn't necessary and sub-Q cheaper. Ship the drug cold to patients home and don't force patient to go to IV center.

referring to my post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeronLimab_Times/com...;context=3

Specifically:

Quote:

---

"Weekly (sub-Q) Leronlimab treatment in a chronically SIV-infected macaque led to increased CCR5+CD4+ T cells levels and fully suppressed plasma viremia, both concomitant with full CCR5 RO on peripheral blood CD4+ T cells, demonstrating that CCR5+CD4+ T cells were protected from viral replication by Leronlimab binding. "

---

and

Quote:

---

"We observed no CCR5 RO on peripheral blood CD4+ T cells immediately prior to Leronlimab dosing, followed by 100% CCR5 RO within eight hours following the SC injection. CCR5 RO was then maintained at approximately 100% until the Leronlimab plasma concentration fell below 5 μg/mL at approximately six weeks post injection. "

---

CCR5 was 100% available just prior to dosing and then after Leronlimab sub-Q dosing, was 100% unavailable for 6 - weeks. Who needs IV when CCR5 was 100% completely bound using sub-Q only?


The statements found in the study referenced here eerily are reminiscent of the findings by Dr. Otto Yang, in that when LL binds 100% to CCR5, even the CD4 T Cells increase in number, not just the number of CCR5 expressed on their cell surfaces.

Quote:

---

"Both suppression of viral replication and increased CCR5+CD4+ T cell levels were temporally associated with full CCR5 RO on peripheral blood CD4+ T cells, underscoring the need to measure CCR5 RO in studies utilizing CCR5-blocking agents. "

---

They were saying back in November, 2021, that it is necessary to measure quantity of Free or Available CCR5 and quantity of Unavailable CCR5. Dr. Otto did just that and came up with that recent finding.