What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***OFFICIAL CYDY/Leronlimab Thread*** (5 Viewers)

She said she they did a cancer study on brain cancer. They injected the drug into the brain and it killed the cancer but also killed the person. So it was a good drug for cancer but not safe at all
But we know leronlimab is completely safe.  800 people have taken it for HIV for years with zero SAEs.  There were a lot of SAEs in the M2M trial.  Those SAEs must have been caused by Covid.  The treatment arm having less SAEs would imply efficacy.

 
Reply from my daughter.  One reason to stall is if they are waiting to get listed on NASDAQ.  This could be because good or bad results.  To get that protection before releasing info so the stock can not be manipulated as easy.
this was my first thought also.

 
There is no direct correlation between SAE numbers.  They need to be studied on a case by case basis.  SAE can have nothing to do with the drug.

 
But we know leronlimab is completely safe.  800 people have taken it for HIV for years with zero SAEs.  There were a lot of SAEs in the M2M trial.  Those SAEs must have been caused by Covid.  The treatment arm having less SAEs would imply efficacy.
No on a whole.  Needs to be determined case by case to get true numbers.  SAE can be someone on LL has a heart attack while taking LL when LL had nothing to do with the attack.

 
No on a whole.  Needs to be determined case by case to get true numbers.  SAE can be someone on LL has a heart attack while taking LL when LL had nothing to do with the attack.
It's a 14 day trial.  Each arm having 5 or 8 SAEs is not random stuff.  It has to be caused by Covid.  No other explanation makes sense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a 28 day trial.  Each arm having 5 or 8 SAEs is not random stuff.  It has to be caused by Covid.  No other explanation makes sense.
In a small sample size, you just cant say this.  More often than not you may be right.  This is science and results need to be scrutinized.

 
Most likely.  Placebo's cause insignificant harm, and LL has been shown to be extremely safe.  Most of the SAE's in this trial are likely from Covid.
I talked with her on the phone about this.  It's a good marker but she just wont make the leap you guys are because she knows it is not directly related.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Text from wife.

She's on the clinical trials.gov. She's reading about their M2M study 
Their primary outcome measure was a decrease in their symptoms score. Then they had 12 secondary outcomes and 4 exploratory outcomes. She said they are throwing darts at everything. 

 
I talked with her on the phone about this.  It's a good marker but she just make the leap you guys are because she knows it is not directly related.
It's not necessarily directly related but since the placebo cannot cause SAEs directly and leronlimab does not cause SAEs it is reasonable to assume that all SAEs were caused by Covid?  And since the treatment arm had less SAEs than the placebo arm, leronlimab is the reason?

 
It's not necessarily directly related but since the placebo cannot cause SAEs directly and leronlimab does not cause SAEs it is reasonable to assume that all SAEs were caused by Covid?  And since the treatment arm had less SAEs than the placebo arm, leronlimab is the reason?
 Correlation does not equal causation.

Statistics 101.

But it's definitely a good sign.

 
The request itself is worrisome.  Too broad IHO.  
Doesn’t make much sense as the disease isn’t well known nor the mechanism for how the drug would affect it.  If you’re doing a study, why not introduce many measures to get a good idea of how your drug affects people as it pertains to Covid?  These parameters were set early March when even less was known.  They were set in partnership with the FDA.

 
She said a person on one of her studies got in a car accident and was hospitalized that was a SAE. She had one in hospital with appendicitis that was a SAE. One was in the hospital or a gall bladder surgery that was a SAE. None of them were drug related. 

They can not say it was Covid 

 
She thinks having 16 secondary outcomes is going to take a while to analyze but they all ready know if they hit their primary or not. Don't know why they are not telling that info. 

 
She said a person on one of her studies got in a car accident and was hospitalized that was a SAE. She had one in hospital with appendicitis that was a SAE. One was in the hospital or a gall bladder surgery that was a SAE. None of them were drug related. 

They can not say it was Covid 
There is a total of 19 SAEs.  The study had 84 patients over 14 days.  It is probably all Covid.  Maybe 1 is not.  But probably all are Covid.

 
Doesn’t make much sense as the disease isn’t well known nor the mechanism for how the drug would affect it.  If you’re doing a study, why not introduce many measures to get a good idea of how your drug affects people as it pertains to Covid?  These parameters were set early March when even less was known.  They were set in partnership with the FDA.
Re didn't say it was bad to have so many secondary causes. She thinks they are hoping to show it works on many different areas 

 
But we know leronlimab is completely safe.  800 people have taken it for HIV for years with zero SAEs.  There were a lot of SAEs in the M2M trial.  Those SAEs must have been caused by Covid.  The treatment arm having less SAEs would imply efficacy.
Except for the one person who died who appartently was a Leronlimab patient.

 
She thinks having 16 secondary outcomes is going to take a while to analyze but they all ready know if they hit their primary or not. Don't know why they are not telling that info. 
I took a look at the Remdesivir study to get a comparison. In her opinion was the primary outcomes for Remdesivir "better" from a trial structure viewpoint? Does CYDY investigation outcomes differ that much?

 
She thinks having 16 secondary outcomes is going to take a while to analyze but they all ready know if they hit their primary or not. Don't know why they are not telling that info. 
They’ll get killed if they release just the primary and then nothing else imo. Would make sense to me to wait till you have it all. 

 
Doesn’t make much sense as the disease isn’t well known nor the mechanism for how the drug would affect it.  If you’re doing a study, why not introduce many measures to get a good idea of how your drug affects people as it pertains to Covid?  These parameters were set early March when even less was known.  They were set in partnership with the FDA.
I agree with this. If there were ever a trial where you’d throw every dart it would be this one. 

 
She thinks having 16 secondary outcomes is going to take a while to analyze but they all ready know if they hit their primary or not. Don't know why they are not telling that info. 
Also releasing just part of this would lead to more skepticism. Where is the rest of the report? Must have been terrible if they just released a part of it? If you want the true stock pop you need to put it all out. Once people analyzed it, they would drag it down. 

 
Where did you get this? Thought we didn't know what group the patient was in?
I think Nader said the patient died 33 days after the trial started and they were in the treatment arm.  And then he said that a patient dying from a car accident would be considered as an SAE.  But he was talking theoretical.  Clearly, the patient died from Covid and was in the treatment arm.

 
I think Nader said the patient died 33 days after the trial started and they were in the treatment arm.  And then he said that a patient dying from a car accident would be considered as an SAE.  But he was talking theoretical.  Clearly, the patient died from Covid and was in the treatment arm.
Yup.  Doesn't look good when your only patient who dies from a mild/moderate case of Covid was taking the cure.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top