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*** (1 Viewer)

What do 1700 SF Garden homes sell for in that area? Construction costs on same?

Might be neat to make everyone park at clubhouse and drive golf cart to their home to save on all the road, sidewalk, curb and gutter infrastructure costs. 

Instead of a back 9 have RV space rentals 55 and up. 

 
What do 1700 SF Garden homes sell for in that area? Construction costs on same?

Might be neat to make everyone park at clubhouse and drive golf cart to their home to save on all the road, sidewalk, curb and gutter infrastructure costs. 

Instead of a back 9 have RV space rentals 55 and up. 
Then convert the clubhouse to a Early Bird Dinner Club and on the BRP, you would probably have a winning business model.

 
Wow those last several spots filled quickly
So many things in motion right now. New hires, new advisory members, uplist, m'/m EAU decisions, BLA submission, NASH, basket trials, rantes/panties.

CYDY is taking on the persona of a successful company.

Just need some revenue, thats all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) on admission predicts severe disease and in-hospital mortality from Covid-19 – a prospective cohort study

Marius Myrstad, Håkon Ihle-Hansen, [...], and Trygve Berge

Abstract
Background
There is a need for validated clinical risk scores to identify patients at risk of severe disease and to guide decision-making during the covid-19 pandemic. The National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) is widely used in emergency medicine, but so far, no studies have evaluated its use in patients with covid-19. We aimed to study the performance of NEWS2 and compare commonly used clinical risk stratification tools at admission to predict risk of severe disease and in-hospital mortality in patients with covid-19.

Methods
This was a prospective cohort study in a public non-university general hospital in the Oslo area, Norway, including a cohort of all 66 patients hospitalised with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from the start of the pandemic; 13 who died during hospital stay and 53 who were discharged alive. Data were collected consecutively from March 9th to April 27th 2020. The main outcome was the ability of the NEWS2 score and other clinical risk scores at emergency department admission to predict severe disease and in-hospital mortality in covid-19 patients. We calculated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for NEWS2 scores ≥5 and ≥ 6, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score ≥ 2, ≥2 Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, and CRB-65 score ≥ 2. Areas under the curve (AUCs) for the clinical risk scores were compared using DeLong’s test.

Results
In total, 66 patients (mean age 67.9 years) were included. Of these, 23% developed severe disease. In-hospital mortality was 20%. Tachypnoea, hypoxemia and confusion at admission were more common in patients developing severe disease. A NEWS2 score ≥ 6 at admission predicted severe disease with 80.0% sensitivity and 84.3% specificity (Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.822, 95% CI 0.690–0.953). NEWS2 was superior to qSOFA score ≥ 2 (AUC 0.624, 95% CI 0.446–0.810, p < 0.05) and other clinical risk scores for this purpose.

Conclusion
NEWS2 score at hospital admission predicted severe disease and in-hospital mortality, and was superior to other widely used clinical risk scores in patients with covid-19.
NEWS2 on Admission Predicts Severe Diseases and Mortality from COVID

Found this on the CYDY website. More good NEWS2!

What sucks is the S/C is using SOFA as an endpoint. Would be nice if they could add in NEWS2 instead.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was able to read the article but can’t access it now to copy. 
 

It states that an OWS official said LL is not being considered. CytoDyn submitted info to OWS. They had experts look at it and decided not to move forward. 
 

it also states Patterson is no longer a CYDY consultant and they are not using his lab. Additionally Patterson says he never received any info regarding him being granted shares of CYDY stock and he doesn’t consider himself a shareholder. CYDY says the paperwork released in April which shows Patterson as a share holder speaks for itself. 
 

this is not a good article for CYDY. 

 
Additionally Patterson says he never received any info regarding him being granted shares of CYDY stock and he doesn’t consider himself a shareholder. CYDY says the paperwork released in April which shows Patterson as a share holder speaks for itself. 
 
What is up with this.  This is really weird on all fronts

 
Comments by IncellDx CEO Bruce Patterson last week lifted shares of CytoDyn Inc.PHOTO: SCOTT STRAZZANTE/THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/GETTY IMAGES

By
 
Michael Wursthorn

Aug. 26, 2020 11:45 am ET

The market for small biotechs working on coronavirus treatments is so hot that sometimes all it takes is a whisper to send a stock soaring.
So it was with CytoDyn Inc., which climbed more than 20% after a former adviser told television host Dr. Drew Pinksy on Thursday that he thought the company would move forward with a federal-government program aimed at fast-tracking virus treatments.

CytoDyn isn’t being considered for the program, known as Operation Warp Speed, according to a senior administration official.

Yet in the quick-punch world of retail investing, the video clip of the former adviser, Bruce Patterson, has already gone viral. Investors who closely follow the company shared it on social media and message boards, including Investors Hub, a forum popular with penny-stock traders. Shares of CytoDyn rallied 13% to $3.43 a share on Friday, notching the company’s biggest daily gain in about a month, before rising another 12% on Monday.
CytoDyn Shares have plateaued since then, declining a more than 2% over the last two trading sessions.

Operation Warp Speed is a federal initiative to accelerate the development and manufacturing of drugs and vaccines for Covid-19, which has claimed more than 175,000 lives in the U.S. Through the program, the government has given funding to companies such as Moderna Inc., Novavax Inc. and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

The senior administration official said CytoDyn had only completed a preliminary qualification for being included in the initiative. The Vancouver, Wash., company had submitted information through a so-called CoronaWatch, a program run by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or Barda, to assess the viability of drugs and therapeutics that might be effective against Covid-19, the official said. Technical experts reviewed the submission and opted not to proceed further at this time, the official added.
The team responsible for reviewing the materials makes clear to companies that submissions are for informational purposes only and don’t lead to funding on their own, the official added. Companies must apply to specific grant programs to receive funding, the official said, which CytoDyn hasn’t done at this time.
Dr. Patterson told The Wall Street Journal that he helped arrange an initial exchange of information between CytoDyn and Barda. He hadn’t been involved in further discussions, he said.

CytoDyn declined to comment on the exchange or on any communication with Operation Warp Speed.
“CytoDyn received an email. I received an email from Operation Warp Speed. So yes they are aware of it,” Dr. Patterson said in the video. “And I think we’ll move forward with them.”
The company hired Dr. Patterson as an adviser, in addition to hiring his company, IncellDx, to provide diagnostic services. CytoDyn and Dr. Patterson said his tenure as a consultant ended in May. CytoDyn also no longer uses Dr. Patterson’s company for diagnostic services.
An April securities filing disclosed that Dr. Patterson was a CytoDyn shareholder.
In the interview with the Journal, Dr. Patterson said he never received paperwork regarding his ownership in CytoDyn. “I’ve gotten little to no paperwork regarding that,” he said. “I don’t think of it as real.”
On the question of Dr. Patterson’s share ownership, Arian Colachis, CytoDyn’s general counsel, pointed to the April filing.
“The document speaks for itself, and we have no further comment,” she said.
Write to Michael Wursthorn at Michael.Wursthorn@wsj.com

 
I cannot read the article either, but cannot tell from the above as to why it's bad?  It sounds like more misinformation?  If CYDY has paperwork showing Patterson as a shareholder, doesn't that discredit the article? 

 
I was able to read the article but can’t access it now to copy. 
 

It states that an OWS official said LL is not being considered. CytoDyn submitted info to OWS. They had experts look at it and decided not to move forward. 
 

it also states Patterson is no longer a CYDY consultant and they are not using his lab. Additionally Patterson says he never received any info regarding him being granted shares of CYDY stock and he doesn’t consider himself a shareholder. CYDY says the paperwork released in April which shows Patterson as a share holder speaks for itself. 
 

this is not a good article for CYDY. 
The not using his lab is not new iirc, was discussed a few weeks back, was a cost thing.  At that same time there was talk Dr P was no longer involved and that got dispelled too.  Wonder if that is where the article got its info.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That CYDY did not follow by its own choice through with pursuing OWS is what is important. Its not like they were rejected.

Wonder if saying we will move forward with it means Patterson is speaking  for his own company.

As always AF quick to jump on it.

 
Are we sure that the FDA will consider 195, the halfway point enrollment of the severe critical trial, to be valid data for approval?  I know NP thinks it will be good enough but I've been questioning this one lately.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing that isn’t good is that the WSJ has a large reach. People that have followed the story know that Paterson’s relationship with CYDY is rocky. Now more people know that. 
 

the Patterson stock comment seems strange. I just don’t really see how that line of question would go that would get that answer. 
 

the OWS stuff isn’t good even though it is only accredited to an unnamed source. It hints at the Federal government not thinking of LL as a real answer. 
 

the strange thing is this same writer wrote another CYDY hot piece a few weeks ago. Not sure what his agenda is but he clearly has one. 

 
It wasn't a very successful hit piece, IMO. 

Most of the shareholders left in this thing aren't even going to blink at a 15-30 cent drop in 15 minutes.

I still believe the NASDAQ uplisting is two weeks away.  First game of the NFL season seems like a good target day for it.

 
That CYDY did not follow by its own choice through with pursuing OWS is what is important. Its not like they were rejected.

Wonder if saying we will move forward with it means Patterson is speaking  for his own company.

As always AF quick to jump on it.
I read it as OWS didn’t move forward after seeing the information that CYDY sent to them. 
 

I may be interpreting that wrong 

 
The thing that isn’t good is that the WSJ has a large reach. People that have followed the story know that Paterson’s relationship with CYDY is rocky. Now more people know that. 
 

the Patterson stock comment seems strange. I just don’t really see how that line of question would go that would get that answer. 
 

the OWS stuff isn’t good even though it is only accredited to an unnamed source. It hints at the Federal government not thinking of LL as a real answer. 
 

the strange thing is this same writer wrote another CYDY hot piece a few weeks ago. Not sure what his agenda is but he clearly has one. 
I understand he has been tied back to Adam F in some way.  

 
I read it as OWS didn’t move forward after seeing the information that CYDY sent to them. 
 

I may be interpreting that wrong 
This is how I read it as well.  It certainly looks bad from an outsider looking in, but I think its BS and conveniently not able to be confirmed.

 
Are we sure that the FDA will consider 195, the halfway point of the trial, to be valid data for approval?  I know NP thinks it will be good enough but I've been questioning this one lately.
195 is half of 390.

I am not sure what else halfway could mean.  What has you thinking about it?

I won't put anything past the FDA, though.

I also will admit that we might just all be completely wrong about this drug (for covid) and it will be all for naught.

 
The positive article didn’t seem to have any impact on the stock price so I’m not sure why the negative article would.  
I would say it is a lot easy to create fear, especially in a risky OTC biotech, than it is to instill confidence.

Most won't really look too far into it.  There are enough of these out there right now that its not hard to pull money from one and drop into another.  See RLFTF up 20+% again today.

 
195 is half of 390.

I am not sure what else halfway could mean.  What has you thinking about it?

I won't put anything past the FDA, though.

I also will admit that we might just all be completely wrong about this drug (for covid) and it will be all for naught.
Its not that they didn't get to half, I just don't know how the FDA works enough to know that this is going to be considered good enough for approval in the end (since they didn't complete the trial)

 
Its not that they didn't get to half, I just don't know how the FDA works enough to know that this is going to be considered good enough for approval in the end (since they didn't complete the trial)
Gotcha.

I agree, and I think the numbers are going to have to be so incredible and prove that LL is saving lives for them to halt the trial at the midpoint and give approval or EUA.

And I mean, no questions statistically significant numbers.  <.01

 
They are getting killed on the stocks not being real comment

https://twitter.com/AuspexResearch/status/1298660012999532546

Im tired of all the stupid crap that happens behind the scenes at this company.  At best they are completely inept when it comes to filings, at worst something shady has been going on.

Even if its just them being inept, how is the FDA going to have any confidence that they can deliver something that is a lot more critical.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing that isn’t good is that the WSJ has a large reach. People that have followed the story know that Paterson’s relationship with CYDY is rocky. Now more people know that. 
 

the Patterson stock comment seems strange. I just don’t really see how that line of question would go that would get that answer. 
 

the OWS stuff isn’t good even though it is only accredited to an unnamed source. It hints at the Federal government not thinking of LL as a real answer. 
 

the strange thing is this same writer wrote another CYDY hot piece a few weeks ago. Not sure what his agenda is but he clearly has one. 
In the interview with the Journal, Dr. Patterson said he never received paperwork regarding his ownership in CytoDyn. “I’ve gotten little to no paperwork regarding that,” he said. “I don’t think of it as real.”

On the question of Dr. Patterson’s share ownership, Arian Colachis, CytoDyn’s general counsel, pointed to the April filing.

“The document speaks for itself, and we have no further comment,” she said.

----------

I am sure Chet knows where the bodies are buried, but the best possible interpretation I can come up with here is that he is trying to claim/defend his neutrality/independence insofar as "he doesn't even think about these shares". 

 
Truthfully, the thing that is most confusing to me is I have never seen a hit piece on any of these other therapeutics.  Why is that?  I'm not talking about the BP ones like Rem and Con Plasma.  Those are "approved", so they should be scrutinized.

I don't see hit pieces on RLFTF, HGEN, RGEN....  it does seem they focus on CYDY.  Its clockwork every time they put out good news.  Easy target or something else?

 
Im just tired of reading about things unrelated to the science ripping this company about.  It does go back to piss poor management though.  Some of this should be buttoned up.  At least the filing of the BLA could have been a lot more buttoned up.

NP's selling of shares has never sat well with me.  I know there is an alternate explanation for it to help finance Samsung but I've never been convinced that was the reason either.

Now the latest with BP and shares, Im tired of reading things that make no sense that are also negative.

You know what would make me feel better though?  Patterson being peer reviewed and published in a respected medical journal.  Can that please happen soon?  It will really ease any bad feelings that sometimes creep up.

 
I definitely ride the rollercoaster hard.  Negative press definitely gets to me.  I can't completely brush it all off, some of it raises valid questions.

I should edit to say, the Night King can say whatever he wants and I won't take that guy seriously.  He's an outright liar with an agenda but the Wall Street Journal publishing things definitely gets to me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I definitely ride the rollercoaster hard.  Negative press definitely gets to me.  I can't completely brush it all off, some of it raises valid questions.

I should edit to say, the Night King can say whatever he wants and I won't take that guy seriously.  He's an outright liar with an agenda but the Wall Street Journal publishing things definitely gets to me.
I'm right there with you on this.  I wish I could just not pay attention at all day to day and see where we are at on September 30.

If we are still in the same spot, then I think I will get worried. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top