Thanks for the fact-check. Got to demand precision. Yes, the distinction between "Regular" and "Clinical Trial" designations is a nuance which matters.
Let’s move past the semantics into how these posters actually hit the floor in April.
1. The Abstract vs. The Presentation
For a Regular Abstract, the text submitted in November is what gets printed in the AACR proceedings. That text is a frozen snapshot.
However, the Poster Presentation itself is not a photocopy of the abstract. It is standard, accepted practice for researchers to include "Updated Data" on the poster. While the title and the summary in the program remain fixed to what was sent in November, the charts and the N-counts in the poster reflect the most recent data-lock (usually February). Scientists don't present stale data to their peers if more mature data is sitting in the lab.
2. The "Clinical Trials" Designation
This is a Phase 2 study. The AACR has a category for "Clinical Trials in Progress" and "Phase I/II Trials." Assuredly, CytoDyn categorized the submission under this heading (which it likely was, given the LifeTracDx collaboration), and the AACR's own rules explicitly allow for "Late-Breaking" updates to the clinical results of in progress trials.
Suggesting that the team would limit themselves to a November snapshot for a multi-billion dollar "uncloaking" mechanism, knowing the presentation is in April would defy strategic logic of a company seeking a suitor.
3. The "700mg" Necessity
When I speak with certainty about the 700mg data, I’m not guessing about a date; I’m logically looking at the Strategic Mandate.
A buyout/partnership with Merck or Roche doesn't happen on "Phase 2a-lite" data from 5 patients. A suitor requires a Dose-Response Curve. They need to definitively see that 700mg does more than 350mg. Without that unequivocal split, the Physics of the mechanism would not be proven. For Dr. Jay to go to the AACR, the biggest oncology stage in the world, and not include the dose-escalation data would be a strategic failure, in my opinion.
Yes, the Regular Abstract text is locked. But the Poster is the prize. The "BS" filter you implement is important, but so is the Institutional Filter. Big Pharma scouts don't care about what was typed in a text box in November; they care about the updated N-count and the 700mg dose-response shown on the screen in April.
I'm sticking by the 700mg thesis not as a hypothetical hunch, but as the only logical outcome of a company that has finalized its darkroom development of the film.
Let’s move past the semantics into how these posters actually hit the floor in April.
1. The Abstract vs. The Presentation
For a Regular Abstract, the text submitted in November is what gets printed in the AACR proceedings. That text is a frozen snapshot.
However, the Poster Presentation itself is not a photocopy of the abstract. It is standard, accepted practice for researchers to include "Updated Data" on the poster. While the title and the summary in the program remain fixed to what was sent in November, the charts and the N-counts in the poster reflect the most recent data-lock (usually February). Scientists don't present stale data to their peers if more mature data is sitting in the lab.
2. The "Clinical Trials" Designation
This is a Phase 2 study. The AACR has a category for "Clinical Trials in Progress" and "Phase I/II Trials." Assuredly, CytoDyn categorized the submission under this heading (which it likely was, given the LifeTracDx collaboration), and the AACR's own rules explicitly allow for "Late-Breaking" updates to the clinical results of in progress trials.
Suggesting that the team would limit themselves to a November snapshot for a multi-billion dollar "uncloaking" mechanism, knowing the presentation is in April would defy strategic logic of a company seeking a suitor.
3. The "700mg" Necessity
When I speak with certainty about the 700mg data, I’m not guessing about a date; I’m logically looking at the Strategic Mandate.
A buyout/partnership with Merck or Roche doesn't happen on "Phase 2a-lite" data from 5 patients. A suitor requires a Dose-Response Curve. They need to definitively see that 700mg does more than 350mg. Without that unequivocal split, the Physics of the mechanism would not be proven. For Dr. Jay to go to the AACR, the biggest oncology stage in the world, and not include the dose-escalation data would be a strategic failure, in my opinion.
Yes, the Regular Abstract text is locked. But the Poster is the prize. The "BS" filter you implement is important, but so is the Institutional Filter. Big Pharma scouts don't care about what was typed in a text box in November; they care about the updated N-count and the 700mg dose-response shown on the screen in April.
I'm sticking by the 700mg thesis not as a hypothetical hunch, but as the only logical outcome of a company that has finalized its darkroom development of the film.
6
1
