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)

Dwayne Hoover said:
I don't have a link but this is a fact.

The last week of April, Nader stated that BP's paper was going to be published that week.  He actually went one step further and promised it was going to be "published in a prestigious medical journal"  This was a day or two before the Nader stock sale..

Also the same week Dr Yo had one of his youtube webcasts and stated that Patterson was going to be published in a supplemental issue of Nature that week.

Where did Dr Yo get that info from?  Nader or BP?  We know BP is saying now that he knew it would take months but is this an about face?

Was Nader trying to pump up the sp before he sold?  
 
Click to expand...
It should be easy to find and link then.  Was this article also going to be peer reviewed and put into the NE Journal within a week?

 
Chaz McNulty said:
It should be easy to find and link then.  Was this article also going to be peer reviewed and put into the NE Journal within a week?
Click to expand...
Im sure there are plenty of others that remember this as well as me.  Actually what you are saying, that's exactly what they were saying. 

Published in a prestigious journal within a week of the preprint.

You don't have to believe me but I remember some pretty exact details about this.

 
Dwayne Hoover said:
Im sure there are plenty of others that remember this as well as me.  Actually what you are saying, that's exactly what they were saying. 

Published in a prestigious journal within a week of the preprint.

You don't have to believe me but I remember some pretty exact details about this.
Click to expand...
https://www.cytodyn.com/investors/news-events/press-releases/detail/426/manuscript-describes-how-cytodyns-leronlimab-disrupts

I'm not trying to bust your balls, but I don't remember anything regarding timing on the paper.  I know that we were all hopeful that it would come out quickly, but I don't recall a timeline given.  Maybe NP made one of his irresponsible timeline statements, but I cannot recall.

I know that the AF group has constantly been saying "wheres the paper".  But they are just using that to short and create doubt.

 
Chaz McNulty said:
https://www.cytodyn.com/investors/news-events/press-releases/detail/426/manuscript-describes-how-cytodyns-leronlimab-disrupts

I'm not trying to bust your balls, but I don't remember anything regarding timing on the paper.  I know that we were all hopeful that it would come out quickly, but I don't recall a timeline given.  Maybe NP made one of his irresponsible timeline statements, but I cannot recall.

I know that the AF group has constantly been saying "wheres the paper".  But they are just using that to short and create doubt.
Click to expand...
It happened on a video call by Nader followed by a dr yo webcast, followed by the Nader stock sale.

Anyone else want to back this up?  Don Hutson remembers it, I remember it, Im sure there are plenty of others.

 
Dwayne Hoover said:
It happened on a video call by Nader followed by a dr yo webcast, followed by the Nader stock sale.

Anyone else want to back this up?  Don Hutson remembers it, I remember it, Im sure there are plenty of others.
Click to expand...
I remember NP saying something about the paper, but don't remember if he promised next week but he definitely implied it would be soon. 

 
Charlie Harper said:
Dwayne Hoover said:
It happened on a video call by Nader followed by a dr yo webcast, followed by the Nader stock sale.

Anyone else want to back this up?  Don Hutson remembers it, I remember it, Im sure there are plenty of others.
Click to expand...
I remember NP saying something about the paper, but don't remember if he promised next week but he definitely implied it would be soon. 
Click to expand...
What Charlie remembers is pretty much what I remember. I do feel like there was an insinuation of a few weeks, but I don’t know if that was our conjecture or NP’s. 

 
Bluto Blutarsky said:
My big take away from last night was Dr Patterson saying that the m/m patients issue was more immunological than virological. That’s why we see such a big reduction SAEs, because LL prevents the body from raising IL-6/8 and then rantes iirc

this would also explain the many different ways LL can help other diseases, because it’s not disease specific, but cell specific.  
Click to expand...
Oh my God, I just noticed you have a NP avatar. I am thrilled at your commitment. 

Also, thank you for this concise takeaway.

 
I think folks are missing something. Won’t the m/m trials show that LL keep patients out of the hospital better than placebo? That was remdesiver’s big selling point, reduction of hospital stay.  If this works as advertised, patients wont progress to the hospital stay and have fewer long lasting complications. We are finding out that many patients that survive are having long lasting symptoms. LL will probably help that. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MEJWOOD#57 said:
I think folks are missing something. Won’t the m/m trials show that LL keep patients out of the hospital better than placebo? That was remdesiver’s big selling point, reduction of hospital stay.  If this works as advertised, patients wont progress to the hospital stay and have fewer long lasting complications. We are finding out that many patients that survive are having long lasting symptoms. LL will probably help that. 
Click to expand...
Yes I think the consensus is building here that the day 14 thing may not show much but the day 3 may be a grand slam. As a very non-sciency educated guy I have to assume they are trying to change the end points to have a better picture to paint. 

 
Bluto Blutarsky said:
My big take away from last night was Dr Patterson saying that the m/m patients issue was more immunological than virological. That’s why we see such a big reduction SAEs, because LL prevents the body from raising IL-6/8 and then rantes iirc

this would also explain the many different ways LL can help other diseases, because it’s not disease specific, but cell specific.  
Click to expand...
Better listen to him, he's pre-med.  

 
dkp993 said:
What Charlie remembers is pretty much what I remember. I do feel like there was an insinuation of a few weeks, but I don’t know if that was our conjecture or NP’s. 
Click to expand...
I remember similar.  Someone up-thread said NP essentially guaranteed the paper would be published on that next Thursday?  I thought he said we're hopeful that it will be published very soon.  With all we know about NP, if he guaranteed anything... we'd need to stock up on grains of salt.  

 
I have heard that the P-value for the early peak in the S/C trail would have to be really impressive for them to stop the trial.  Just being statistically significant will not do it (.05).  With only 25 in the placebo group, this basically means we would probably need over 50% or higher of the placebo group to die to have a chance.  If only 9 or 10 die, than the control arm would need to save around 45 out of 50 people to be trending towards .01 and a stop to the trial.

This will be really difficult with a lower than 50% of deaths in the placebo group.  LL has its work cut out for it.

 
Chaz McNulty said:
I have heard that the P-value for the early peak in the S/C trail would have to be really impressive for them to stop the trial.  Just being statistically significant will not do it (.05).  With only 25 in the placebo group, this basically means we would probably need over 50% or higher of the placebo group to die to have a chance.  If only 9 or 10 die, than the control arm would need to save around 45 out of 50 people to be trending towards .01 and a stop to the trial.

This will be really difficult with a lower than 50% of deaths in the placebo group.  LL has its work cut out for it.
Click to expand...
Seems ridiculous in the middle of a pandemic if the drug has proven to be as safe as we think it is. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaz McNulty said:
I agree.  If they decide to continue with the trial, do they release the P-value information to the company at that point?
Click to expand...
I thought it was the other way around, cydy and whoever they hired to tabulate the results provided it to the FDA

 
Chaz McNulty said:
Nice find.  Dr. Yo seems positive that it was going to be in the upcoming Nature journal.  I wonder what happened to get it pulled?
Click to expand...
They did mention that the trial was lacking control data/groups.  Dr. P said that's been rectified with data coming in from other folks, so we'll see where it ends up.

 
Chaz McNulty said:
I have heard that the P-value for the early peak in the S/C trail would have to be really impressive for them to stop the trial.  Just being statistically significant will not do it (.05). 
Click to expand...
Heard where? This doesn’t sound correct. 

 
Interesting thread from yahoo:

“Short speculation. Cytodyn asked for the DSMC review because they knew from the S/C patient blood test results which of the patients who died were in the placebo and which were in leronlimab the arm because analysis of leronlimab patients showed the same biomarker improvement patterns (CD8, Plasma viral load etc) as the Montefiore patients and Cytodyn felt it was statistically significant enough to stop the study and get an EUA.“

“Dr. Patterson said he was doing the testing for them on both studies. He just wasn't told which patient was in each arm. But I am sure he could tell from the blood analysis profile. He said it in this interview.”

“So twice Dr Patterson has mentioned the (luminescence based) markers in the LL drug trials. So it has to be 100% that in a blood sample you know which patient has the drug (LL)”

 
Capella said:
Interesting thread from yahoo:

“Short speculation. Cytodyn asked for the DSMC review because they knew from the S/C patient blood test results which of the patients who died were in the placebo and which were in leronlimab the arm because analysis of leronlimab patients showed the same biomarker improvement patterns (CD8, Plasma viral load etc) as the Montefiore patients and Cytodyn felt it was statistically significant enough to stop the study and get an EUA.“

“Dr. Patterson said he was doing the testing for them on both studies. He just wasn't told which patient was in each arm. But I am sure he could tell from the blood analysis profile. He said it in this interview.”

“So twice Dr Patterson has mentioned the (luminescence based) markers in the LL drug trials. So it has to be 100% that in a blood sample you know which patient has the drug (LL)”
Click to expand...
Man it will be nice when we finally get clarity on this.  Do we know what tomorrow's conference call is about?

 
No investor call - a review of the severe/critical info is tomorrow. No idea when we hear results of it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do other companies have this many meetings/videos/press releases/conference calls......etc......EVERY TIME the stock drops?

This is a serious question....I’m a noob to this type of thing so this may be normal. But from a guy like myself who is a skeptic by nature this seems really odd.

 
ChiefD said:
Do other companies have this many meetings/videos/press releases/conference calls......etc......EVERY TIME the stock drops?

This is a serious question....I’m a noob to this type of thing so this may be normal. But from a guy like myself who is a skeptic by nature this seems really odd.
Click to expand...
No. Honestly, that’s what ticked me off so much before. NP is so worried about shorts but his trying to explain things or announce things to prevent them actually gives them more info to use. I’d much rather just have them release info after it’s vetted and done with little fanfare.

 
I think he does all the calls and videos because he’s worried about the stock price dipping below the uplisting standard. He doesn’t seem to know that they aren’t helping though. 

 
Before we get into the frenzied action of tomorrow, I thought I’d share this article I came across over the last week and which, of course, totally me think leronlimab. I love learning #### like this.

Wonder where generic drug names come from? Two women in Chicago, that’s where

Orange resident Wayne King had a simple enough question: How do prescription drugs get named?

My initial guess was there must be some blue-ribbon panel of experts involved, or maybe a fancy computer algorithm.

I couldn’t have been more wrong.

King, 80, made clear that he wasn’t so interested in brand names, which drug companies typically struggle to concoct because, simply, all the good ones have been taken.

No, he wanted to know about the generic names that accompany brand names in ads.

“I want to know about the parts you can’t pronounce,” King told me.

He offered some examples:

Xarelto from manufacturer Janssen (generic name rivaroxaban).

Humira from AbbVie (adalimumab).

Jardiance from Boehringer Ingelheim (empagliflozin).

Trulicity from Eli Lilly (dulaglutide).

Ibrance from Pfizer (palbociclib).

“Who decides those names in parentheses?” King asked.

Brand names are typically cooked up by marketing and naming professionals, with the goal of finding something simple and catchy enough to resonate with consumers.

Lilly’s Trulicity, for example, is a drug intended to help people with Type 2 diabetes control their blood sugar.

The brand name doesn’t convey that — it doesn’t convey anything about the drug — but it does feature a prefix that sounds like “true,” which connotes reliability and trustworthiness. It also suggests “simplicity,” which is nice, and is relatively easy to pronounce.

The generic name, dulaglutide, is more of a tongue twister, a seeming mishmash of syllables that’s probably impenetrable to most patients.

No one at Lilly responded to my request for comment. In fact, none of the drugmakers listed above weighed in on the naming process, for either branded meds or generics.

So I tracked down Stephanie Shubat, director of the United States Adopted Names program, a quasi-public department within the American Medical Assn. that’s responsible for coming up with the generic names for all new drugs.

“We’re the name in the parentheses,” she told me.

USAN, as it’s known, is basically just two women — Shubat and a colleague, Gail Karet — who handle pretty much every new generic drug name.

Their recommendations go to the five-person USAN Council, which operates primarily via email and meets in person twice a year.

Rivaroxaban, adalimumab, empagliflozin.

Picture Shubat and Karet, hunkered down in their offices at the AMA headquarters in Chicago, smushing syllables together for about 200 drug applications a year.

Shubat laughed when I remarked how weird that seems, the two of them chewing over nearly all generic drug names nationwide and, by extension, for much of the world.

“It can be a little strange,” she said. “It’s not unusual to see us talking to ourselves in our offices.”

Frequently, drugmakers try to get ahead of the curve by suggesting their own generic names.

Shubat said she and Karet have to be vigilant for generic names that sneakily come too close to the original manufacturer’s name or the eventual brand name, which could give the company an unfair advantage after the patent expires and generic makers try to compete.

In other words, the generic has to be sufficiently different from the original brand so no confusion is possible.
It goes on a little more at the link.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wadegarrett
***Official OHIO STATE-MICHIGAN Thread***
40 41 42
Replies
2K
Views
52K
Blue Dot Orange Dot
B
Bob Magaw
*** Official 2011 St. Louis Rams Thread ***
Replies
21
Views
2K
Bob Magaw
Bob Magaw
Couch Potato
Couch Potato 2012 Dynasty Rankings
4 5 6
Replies
293
Views
40K
Spin
Spin

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top