Thanks for pointing me in the general direction of the links, MGK. Here's what you wrote:
The links within this Reddit piece only have to do with Gilead trials. They don't have anything to do with what Gilead has communicated to Cytodyn. They don't give any indication (that I can see) that Gilead is attempting to create a preventative vaccine in order to never deploy/use/sell it. I would guess that if Gilead created a successful means to prevent HIV there would be no way they could even try to keep it away from the public.
In general, as I've written to you, I find that you have a masterful command of both the history and the science of Leron and its competitors, but you make no attempt to differentiate facts from conjecture. I'm happy to hear your conjecture so long as you don't present it as fact.
Why did the FDA sink CYDY's CD12 trial? Why, given Leron's amazing record of safety, did the FDA impose a two year long hold on the drug, and accompany that hold with unprecedented public dressings-down? Why didn't the FDA see that CD10 and CD12 and the TNBC and basket cancer trials were indications of a remarkable drug that should be encouraged? Why do internal mails within the FDA show such contempt, even for a reputable scientist like Dr. Jay, and why do they indicate an open desire to delay Leron's progress? Was this antagonism linked to relationships with Gilead and Merck, or was it just a combination of ignorance and dislike for NP and KK? Is that antagonism gone now? Why did an experienced company like Amarex mess up CYDY's proposals so badly? These are all fit subjects for conjecture, and suspicion too. But when you dress up those suspicions as facts you do nobody any favors -- not CYDY, and not you either.
Quote:Gilead wants the biggest bombs though, maybe not so much to actually deploy, but rather to detonate in midair and self-destruct. I take it that Gilead has in no uncertain terms, communicated to CytoDyn that they cannot have any part of HIV. They absolutely want to exclude CytoDyn completely out of this indication,
The links within this Reddit piece only have to do with Gilead trials. They don't have anything to do with what Gilead has communicated to Cytodyn. They don't give any indication (that I can see) that Gilead is attempting to create a preventative vaccine in order to never deploy/use/sell it. I would guess that if Gilead created a successful means to prevent HIV there would be no way they could even try to keep it away from the public.
In general, as I've written to you, I find that you have a masterful command of both the history and the science of Leron and its competitors, but you make no attempt to differentiate facts from conjecture. I'm happy to hear your conjecture so long as you don't present it as fact.
Why did the FDA sink CYDY's CD12 trial? Why, given Leron's amazing record of safety, did the FDA impose a two year long hold on the drug, and accompany that hold with unprecedented public dressings-down? Why didn't the FDA see that CD10 and CD12 and the TNBC and basket cancer trials were indications of a remarkable drug that should be encouraged? Why do internal mails within the FDA show such contempt, even for a reputable scientist like Dr. Jay, and why do they indicate an open desire to delay Leron's progress? Was this antagonism linked to relationships with Gilead and Merck, or was it just a combination of ignorance and dislike for NP and KK? Is that antagonism gone now? Why did an experienced company like Amarex mess up CYDY's proposals so badly? These are all fit subjects for conjecture, and suspicion too. But when you dress up those suspicions as facts you do nobody any favors -- not CYDY, and not you either.
17
