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*** (3 Viewers)

GoBirds said:
Chet is driving his new Ferrari to the club, if he's still in more than 20% or so I would be surprised......he made some nice coin. Mad a lot of us some money, much appreciated.  :suds:
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more with your last sentence.  Much love for @chet and what he turned us on too.  Super grateful.  Still very curious about his thoughts on the last few weeks events though.  

 
Chet did more than his job a long time back and definitely thanks for turning us onto it.  He seems to have Irish Goodbyed though so I'm going to take that as a sign of that he has exited entirely.

Also not seeing Golf Guy much either, perhaps he is gone now too.

 
Charlie Harper said:
So the interim analysis is being done as we speak? 

Anyone know what's the MOST numbers of deaths from LL to still reach a significant p value from the 45?
Click to expand...
This came from the Yahoo board.

If death is 20 in placebo, L is 25, p=0.03, placebo death rate is 30.77%, L is 19.23%
If death is 19 in placebo, L is 26, p=0.08, placebo death rate is 29.23%, L is 20.00%
If death is 18 in placebo, L is 27, p=0.19, placebo death rate is 27.69%, L is 20.77%
If death is 17 in placebo, L is 28, p=0.38, placebo death rate is 26.15%, L is 21.54%

 
We've got one last chance to make money before a long cooling off period.  I cant say the prospects look good for the immediate future.

Its likely time to bail but maybe we can get one more bounce before the EUA final verdict

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaz McNulty said:
This came from the Yahoo board.

If death is 20 in placebo, L is 25, p=0.03, placebo death rate is 30.77%, L is 19.23%
If death is 19 in placebo, L is 26, p=0.08, placebo death rate is 29.23%, L is 20.00%
If death is 18 in placebo, L is 27, p=0.19, placebo death rate is 27.69%, L is 20.77%
If death is 17 in placebo, L is 28, p=0.38, placebo death rate is 26.15%, L is 21.54%
Click to expand...
With that many deaths, there is a chance for this to be significant.  Even if not quite significant enough to get EUA, it should hopefully broadcast to the critics that the drug does work.  Of course the data won't be released so we won't know until the trial is over.

Still don't think I want to be holding all my shares into this event but there is some reason to be slightly optimistic

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IC FBGCav said:
I'm too drunk, what happened?
Click to expand...
We know there are 45 deaths in the severe critical trial, we just don't know which arm has what portion.  Its enough deaths that it could be statistically significant if leronlimab is a lot better.

Other than that, I don't think the call went great.  No mention of a Nasdaq uplist yet.  NP does say again that he's 100% sure that they will eventually be approved for HIV but its hard to believe anything from him at face value.

Something about Patterson's paper being rejected which Im trying to get more details on.  Doesn't sound good though.

 
Dwayne Hoover said:
We know there are 45 deaths in the severe critical trial, we just don't know which arm has what portion.  Its enough deaths that it could be statistically significant if leronlimab is a lot better.

Other than that, I don't think the call went great.  No mention of a Nasdaq uplist yet.  NP does say again that he's 100% sure that they will eventually be approved for HIV but its hard to believe anything from him at face value.

Something about Patterson's paper being rejected which Im trying to get more details on.  Doesn't sound good though.
Click to expand...
All good points, my biggest one i made earlier was why was Patterson only one on board.  

But as to my position on this stock.  I was 100% up front.  I sold, everyone knew.  I bought a mountain home with the proceeds.  Everyone knows.  I got 35k shares.  Everyone knows.

I have been skeptical of everything during this and transparent.

 
IC FBGCav said:
All good points, my biggest one i made earlier was why was Patterson only one on board.  

But as to my position on this stock.  I was 100% up front.  I sold, everyone knew.  I bought a mountain home with the proceeds.  Everyone knows.  I got 35k shares.  Everyone knows.

I have been skeptical of everything during this and transparent.
Click to expand...
sell those 35k and build me a poker room on the mountain home.

 
I don't know why chet is silent.  I texted him ty for getting me this mountain home and showed him the listing (and said he could slum it there for free anytime he wanted)and he texted back, ty.

I didn't talk to him a month before that or since then.  When I was all in on my daughter's analysis, I burned bridges.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dwayne Hoover said:
With that many deaths, there is a chance for this to be significant.  Even if not quite significant enough to get EUA, it should hopefully broadcast to the critics that the drug does work.  Of course the data won't be released so we won't know until the trial is over.

Still don't think I want to be holding all my shares into this event but there is some reason to be slightly optimistic
Click to expand...
If they are anywhere near significant, they will release the news and take a fine if needed.

 
Dwayne Hoover said:
What is the story here?  This has always been a red flag for me.  They were talking about that paper being published in late April.
Click to expand...
This is from another board:

I heard Dr Bruce Patterson talk about why his paper was rejected.
There were no control patients.
So Dr Patterson connected with other doctors who had treated critically ill Covid-19 patients that could be classified as controls. Analyzing their tissues/blood samples was then done. Then the manuscript had to be rewritten and resubmitted.
This accounts for at least part of the delay in publication.

As a scientist, it is my experience that controls are always required for publication of scientific work.

Here is the original preprint:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20084673v1
There are no control patients.
A part of the Abstract is here:
"Here, in 10 terminally-ill, critical COVID-19 patients we report profound elevation of plasma IL-6 and CCL5 (RANTES), decreased CD8+ T cell levels, and SARS-CoV-2 plasma viremia. Following compassionate care treatment with the CCR5 blocking antibody leronlimab, we observed complete CCR5 receptor occupancy on macrophage and T cells, rapid reduction of plasma IL-6, restoration of the CD4/CD8 ratio, and a significant decrease in SARS-CoV-2 plasma viremia. Consistent with reduction of plasma IL-6, single-cell RNA-sequencing revealed declines in transcriptomic myeloid cell clusters expressing IL-6 and interferon-related genes. These results demonstrate a novel approach to resolving unchecked inflammation, restoring immunologic deficiencies, and reducing SARS-CoV-2 plasma viral load via disruption of the CCL5-CCR5 axis, and support randomized clinical trials to assess clinical efficacy of leronlimab-mediated inhibition of CCR5 for COVID-19."
Click to expand...
FWIW

 
Below is a link to Investors Hangout where someone made p value charts.  He seems more credible than the other people trying to do p values.  To get a p value less than .05, the LL arm would have 23 deaths and the placebo arm would have 22 deaths.  That would produce a p value of .03447.  However, some people on the boards are saying that a p value of .05 will not be good enough to have the trial stopped for efficacy.  They are saying a p value lower than .005 will be necessary.  To achieve a p value lower than .005, the LL arm would have 20 deaths and the placebo arm would have 25 deaths.  This would result in a p value of 0.00349.  Obviously, we are in unique times and no excellent treatment exists so what p value will be necessary is anyone's guess.

https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5914267

 
Don Hutson said:
They are saying a p value lower than .005 will be necessary.  To achieve a p value lower than .005, the LL arm would have 20 deaths and the placebo arm would have 25 deaths.  This would result in a p value of 0.00349. 
Click to expand...
A p value below .005 is going to be very difficult to achieve if the above numbers are true:

Treatment arm

110 alive    20 dead

Placebo arm

40 alive      25 dead

 
Don Hutson said:
We are smack dab in the middle of a good old-fashioned cat fight
Click to expand...
This came from the CDC, not CYDY (CYDY reported it as the reason they were being delayed).  The cat fight is between BP and the CDC.  Weird, because he seems like he's one of the experts on Rantes and CCR5.

 
Dwayne Hoover said:
The fine is a penalty on their data and they wont know if significant or not.  You think they would do that?
Click to expand...
Definitely.  I'm beginning to think the bar is so high for this company that FDA approval will not come.  They are more likely to get approval offshore.  If there p-value is below .05, they should be shouting that out to the world.

 
Chaz McNulty said:
This came from the CDC, not CYDY (CYDY reported it as the reason they were being delayed).  The cat fight is between BP and the CDC.  Weird, because he seems like he's one of the experts on Rantes and CCR5.
Click to expand...
That is assuming what Nader said is accurate when he threw Bruce under the bus.  Bruce didn't specify the target of his tweet.

 
I've just sold everything. I didn't end up making a ton of money on this and it was just a stressful rollercoaster in the end. I should have sold much, much higher when it was around $5-6. It was really hard to sell at $2.80 here as I wanted to believe in this stock but everything lately tells me there's nothing good on the horizon. 

It's really a shame because I got into this for HIV and breast cancer treatments in January. I wish they never got into the whole COVID thing because it's become their downfall in a way.

 
Don Hutson said:
That is assuming what Nader said is accurate when he threw Bruce under the bus.  Bruce didn't specify the target of his tweet.
Click to expand...
I don't think he would outright lie when the information is out there.  I am suspect that they will ever be granted approval for anything.  whether it's written instructions on needle packaging, we want to see safety in 700mg's not 350mg's, or BP (one of the scientific leaders in Rantes) has screwed up the CCR5 receprot occupancy test, despite doing it properly for several other big pharma companies in the past.  

The drug has proven safe and shown efficacy in the HIV population for years.  This does not seem to matter.

 
I have been in this long, so I will hold until I see the CD12 results.  There is no way they would try and hold them to a p-value of .005.  I think that's nonsense.

 
Chaz McNulty said:
I have been in this long, so I will hold until I see the CD12 results.  There is no way they would try and hold them to a p-value of .005.  I think that's nonsense.
Click to expand...
It might be how they normally do things.  They don't usually want to stop a trial before it is completed.  So it makes sense that the p value would have to be much better than .05 to end a trial with the interim analysis.  But we are in desperate times so I don't think anyone knows.

 
Don Hutson said:
Below is a link to Investors Hangout where someone made p value charts.  He seems more credible than the other people trying to do p values.  To get a p value less than .05, the LL arm would have 23 deaths and the placebo arm would have 22 deaths.  That would produce a p value of .03447.  However, some people on the boards are saying that a p value of .05 will not be good enough to have the trial stopped for efficacy.  They are saying a p value lower than .005 will be necessary.  To achieve a p value lower than .005, the LL arm would have 20 deaths and the placebo arm would have 25 deaths.  This would result in a p value of 0.00349.  Obviously, we are in unique times and no excellent treatment exists so what p value will be necessary is anyone's guess.

https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5914267
Click to expand...
Do you really believe that Don?

 
Don Hutson said:
It might be how they normally do things.  They don't usually want to stop a trial before it is completed.  So it makes sense that the p value would have to be much better than .05 to end a trial with the interim analysis.  But we are in desperate times so I don't think anyone knows.
Click to expand...
We are talking about a primary endpoint of death.  It's nonsense to think you would need to hit anything close to .005.  That's just doomsayers talking.

 
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: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top