biloxi: Thanks for your excellent summary and commentary, on a pros and cons basis, of r/Livimmune's very upbeat interpretation of Dr Jay' latest letter to CYDY shareholders. Among other things, you point out that "Leronlimab must demonstrate superiority or synergy with existing treatments (e.g., Keyruda, Jemperil)." I agree, but suggest the list should also include Trodelvy from Gilead.
When considering the C-suites of the 3 most likely future
CYDY partners, I would feel most comfortable, fit wise, with GSK, because of its CEO, and least comfortable with Gilead, for a well documented host of reasons. But in terms of achieving a synergistic effect with another mTNBC treatment, ohm has repeatedly opined that Trodelvy would likely qualify, whereas a checkpoint inhibitor (Keytruda, Jemperil) definitely would not. Also, the ongoing mouse trial includes Trodelvy, as well as Keytruda (which could also easily be a stand-in for Jemperil). So all bases appear to be covered. Consequently, ohm's hypothesis will soon be confirmed or disproved (at least as far as humanized mice are concerned).
If ohm is proven correct, and that is where I have repeatedly put my money, such an outcome would seem to tilt the LL playing field toward Gilead. Nevertheless, if the survival results for LL, to be reported at ESMO in Munich on or about May 14, are viewed as truly paradigm shifting, GSK or Merck, or both, could certainly decide to value superiority over synergy and bid aggressively to partner with CYDY.
Given the full content of today's shareholder letter, it does seem clear that Dr Jay and company are confidently pushing most of their LL chips into the middle of the table on oncology, with mTNBC leading the way. As you and r/Livimmune have pointed out, the outcome of this strategy should be known by mid year. Given that Dr Jay undoubtedly knows the number of surviving LL mTNBC patients and their current health status, and probably has a good idea how the mice are doing, I like our odds.
When considering the C-suites of the 3 most likely future
CYDY partners, I would feel most comfortable, fit wise, with GSK, because of its CEO, and least comfortable with Gilead, for a well documented host of reasons. But in terms of achieving a synergistic effect with another mTNBC treatment, ohm has repeatedly opined that Trodelvy would likely qualify, whereas a checkpoint inhibitor (Keytruda, Jemperil) definitely would not. Also, the ongoing mouse trial includes Trodelvy, as well as Keytruda (which could also easily be a stand-in for Jemperil). So all bases appear to be covered. Consequently, ohm's hypothesis will soon be confirmed or disproved (at least as far as humanized mice are concerned).
If ohm is proven correct, and that is where I have repeatedly put my money, such an outcome would seem to tilt the LL playing field toward Gilead. Nevertheless, if the survival results for LL, to be reported at ESMO in Munich on or about May 14, are viewed as truly paradigm shifting, GSK or Merck, or both, could certainly decide to value superiority over synergy and bid aggressively to partner with CYDY.
Given the full content of today's shareholder letter, it does seem clear that Dr Jay and company are confidently pushing most of their LL chips into the middle of the table on oncology, with mTNBC leading the way. As you and r/Livimmune have pointed out, the outcome of this strategy should be known by mid year. Given that Dr Jay undoubtedly knows the number of surviving LL mTNBC patients and their current health status, and probably has a good idea how the mice are doing, I like our odds.
24
