Interesting news article/paper pairing about the spike protein inhibiting dna repair. I would make the claim that the article itself is fairly negligent. I do not see any effort to explain that all of these claims about the effects of the spike protein on the immune system/DNA repair etc would be equally and even more so true for anyone who has had or will have a "natural" covid infection. It's the same mRNA sequence/spike protein(plus a slew of other mRNA/proteins/antigens etc) with a natural infection. I'm really not sure people understand this.

You could replace every reference in this article of the effects of the vaccine and replace it with the effects of a natural infection and you would be accurate, and your take away would be totally different.

It's an interesting pairing because in the actual source paper it is much more clear.

Some fun with a line from the news article:
Original: "5G exposure, chemtrail exposure, food chemical exposure, mammography and even sunlight exposure will wreak havoc in those who have taken mRNA vaccines"

Edited: "5G exposure, chemtrail exposure, food chemical exposure, mammography and even sunlight exposure will wreak havoc in those who have had natural covid-19 infections"

Isn't that interesting how different it comes off?

By the way, I have no idea how accurate the source article is. It is based on in vitro studies which may or may not play out meaningfully in vivo. I'm skeptical that in vivo DNA repair is inhibited by 90% in any meaningful amount of the population as we would already being seeing a dramatic effect of that in the population of both vaccinated and naturally infected people. It's obviously worth researched further, though. This isn't really the point of my response, however.

It's also very important to point out that treatments, like Aviptadil, wouldn't stop this claimed Spike protein effect from taking place either. It would mean the best course of action would be to develop another vaccine using a different antigen. Seriously, if the claims of this paper were/are true then a new vaccine is really the ONLY answer. The virus in all it's forms is almost ubiquitous now. It's here, and basically everyone will end up being exposed to it over time and will therefore be exposed to the effects of the spike protein.

I'm curious where you got your information that the Vaers system has over 10,000 deaths? I literally just searched it and there are about 7500. I'm also wondering if you realize that anyone can input data into the Vaers database? You can also very easily search it yourself. It's not data that is officially verified. It's also almost hilarious if you really look through the data. There are hundreds and thousands of reports normal/good things listed as adverse events like: normal blood work, normal cbc, normal UA normal chest xray, normal xray etc etc etc. There are also thousands or claims of adverse events like: crying, high pitched crying, etc.

Play around with it for while. Really dive in there.

Zyesami = Aviptadil = rlf-100

I have not seen any indication that there are differences in formulation. Has anyone else? If so, where?

Google patents seems to confirm that Relief owns the patent. Meh

The annual incidence ranges from 0.22 to 1.57 per 100,000 for cerebral venous thrombosis (the type of clot I see referenced in articles). There is a 3 to 1 ratio in women vs men. The 6 cases that developed cerebral venous thrombosis out of 6.8 million people vaccinated with the J&J vaccine represents a rate of 0.0882 per 100,000. At the moment that is less than than the expected incidence in the general population of non vaccinated people. Hopefully more aggressive investigation does not reveal many more cases, but finding even 100 more could still be in line with expectations in general public. Time will tell. I'm hopeful.

I did not watch the episode, but from your quote they are likely referring to vasopressors like levophed which are used to increase blood pressure in patients with shock when they say liberated from vasoactive medications.

This is definitely big.

Once again...you're basically aggressively agreeing with me about his statements. It feels odd.

You're objectively wrong about the source of a statement or claim ultimately having any bearing on whether or not the claim is true. If a drunk schizophrenic who is actively psychotic says that 2 plus 2 equals 4...it's still correct.

I still agree that I THINK Clam is wrong, but I don't think he is wrong because he is a rando on the internet. I think he is wrong because I think he is wrong.

I don't think you understood what I meant if this is your response.

I agree that this interview is a positive.

If Clam is right, it would mean the things said in the interview were deliberately fraudulent and thus Javitt would be throwing away his reputation...forever. The fact that he is "some anonymous internet poster" is completely irrelevant. He/she is either correct or incorrect. It is either fraudulent or not.

By pointing this out.. I am not staying that I think Clam is right. I'm implying that I think he/she is wrong,actually. I don't think Javitt would be so brazenly fraudulent in an interview.

If Clam is correct...Javitt is going to jail or has at least destroyed his career after that interview.

This is true. Tamiflu does almost nothing. As a physician, I'm way more excited about this and not just as a covid-19 treatment.

I haven't see the full data on all 3 of these drugs, but it's not a winner take all proposition. All 3 drugs can theoretically be approved.

Exactly. This is definitely not just a covid play. The sooner it is approved and utilized for covid the better, though. I would love to use it with my patients ASAP.

Looks like the board is losing steam. Who thinks we actually get data release this month?

Unfortunately, without more information about this trial it is hard to say much more than what the press release says. You can not make any strong conclusions from it without more information. The list of exclusionary criteria for the main trial is large and depending on the characteristics of both groups...it might be entirely expected that the intervention(rlf-100) group would have a better mortality regardless of intervention. For example: the intervention group could have been loaded with patients who have had a myocardial infarction in the previous 6 months with a troponin level greater than 0.5 as the exclusion criteria but the control group was loaded with ECMO patients. ECMO patients are orders of magnitude "sicker". That is an extreme example...but we just don't know.

I typed up a long reply on the phone and lost it before sending so here goes again...

"Among the secondary efficacy endpoints evaluated in patients treated with High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) therapy and with Mechanical Ventilation, ZYESAMI showed an advantage in 15 of 16 comparisons and demonstrated a 40% or better advantage (hazard ratio <0.7). The likelihood of this magnitude of advantage being seen by chance alone is about 1 in 2,000 (P=.0005). This difference includes at least a five-day median reduction in hospital stay. (P=.043). The largest difference observed was among those treated with HFNC who experienced a median of 11 fewer days in hospital (15 vs. 26)."

It seems we are both technically wrong. I interpreted "This difference includes at least a five-day median reduction in hospital stay. (P=.043)" too broadly, and I think you interpreted it too narrowly. I think my mistake is larger, though. I'm wrong in that it does not include all patients, but it is also not just HFNC patients. It also includes mechanically ventilated patients. Based on previous date/trials the percentage of the trial population meeting this criteria will likely fall into the 25 to 50% range. Edit: I actually see this sentence in the study summary "Patients with Critical COVID-19 and respiratory failure, currently treated with high flow nasal oxygen, non-invasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation will be treated with ZYESAMI..." which seems to imply that it will be a high percentage then that, but that is still just speculation. It makes no mention of patient on lower levels of oxygen support like standard nasal cannula/ventimask/non-rebreather mask.

You are, of course, correct that slicing up the data into more and more subsets increases the chances that a random/chance occurrence will be labeled as statistically significant(1 in 20 by definition if using the standard p value of 0.05), but that is more relevant for subsets that do not correlate. We do not know the subsets yet, and we do not know how many of them trend towards significance suggesting correlation. Only full data release will help us there. They do tease 15 out of 16 comparisons showing favorably, but we don't know what they are. They also claim a 40% or better advantage in these comparisons. Depending on the subsets, that could definitely imply correlation. Only time will tell.

I want to reiterate, again, that these result are in addition to current standard of care which is presumably steroids and Remdesivir. That is not a trivial point. Additional therapies to current multi-treatment standard of care are at a disadvantage in terms of raw absolute risk reductions because part of the total risk reduction is already being obtained from previous standard of care. Companies power large studies in the thousand to tens of thousands of patients just to eke out 1% or less absolute risk reductions and are approved by the FDA.

Lastly, I'm not trying to give the impression that I am married to this drug. Actual garbage trial results would flip me instantly, but I remain excited about it's prospects with what is currently known from the press releases. A cheap, benign(so far as know yet), and potentially broadly useful treatment for all ARDS...not just covid? I'll continue to pay attention, and I'll continue to hold a small stock position.

The trial, despite it's size, reached a statistically significant reduction in hospital stay with a p value of 0.043. Obviously a larger size is better, but a p value less that 0.05 is the standard used for statistical significance and generally the standard used by the fda. It doesn't matter how large the study is. That is the purpose of the statistical analysis: to determine the likelyhood that a given result is a direct result of an intervention vs chance for a given population size(n). It doesn't matter if endpoint is labeled a primary or a secondary endpoint ultimately if the the result is statistically significant.

The other major thing to think about here that I haven't seen mentioned is that this trial was done on top of standard of care(which includes steroids and Remdesivir). This statistically significant improvement was IN ADDITION to any benefits from those treatments.

If this drug does not receive EUA I will be surprised, and it will likely be because of some information that we don't actually have access too.

I'm an internal medicine physician who works as a hospitalist in the northeast and has seen(and still sees) more than my share of covid-19 patients on both the general medical floor and in the ICU. Assuming there are no surprises (that is the big question, what else will the trial results show?), I'm excited by the results I have seen so far from this drug.

I'm at work and too busy to write an elaborate post, but that is an oversimplified statement that doesn't explain enough.

If I get some time later I'll elaborate.

I'm confused. These results are a lot better than Remdesivir. Why is this being perceived so poorly?

Last we spoke about the cost of Remdesivir at my hospital it was a little over $3000 for a 5 day course and $5500 for a 10 day course.

Not cheap

I think tomorrow is the day

I love how every thread has the person who just says the same thing multiple times every day in all caps.

So if top line data is even half as good as the smaller salvage trial, how high does this thing go?

If that were to be the actual case, they would do very well to wait until low trips...which will DEFINITELY HAPPEN without news. Would be foolish of them not to wait for a while, really. See you guys down there.

I'm looking forward to it personally. I'll be picking up a chunk just to have in my portfolio forever as a reminder not to be stupid and to take profits when you can.

Probably asap because the moment news drops this is going to the Moon.

This board is the closest thing to a time loop I've ever experienced.

So what do we think? This thing hits a dollar this week? Or next week?

You're right. It is a conundrum. Its a conundrum that the supposed subsidiary is De Jeager Tobacco bvba when the large tobacco company in question that ranks number 74 on some list of tobacco companies is named De Jaegher Tobacco bvba.

De Jeager Tobacco bvba
VS.
De Jaegher Tobacco bvba

Interesting.

The hand has been over played. Thank you.

They rank number 74 on a list of tobacco companies worldwide and they are a subsidiary of a company that hasnt doesnt business in....almost a decade?

What exactly are you claiming was updated?

Now this is a correct statement. Yes. The issue is that it is highly doubtful that all of these companies listed have patents that are considered vital or directly incorporated as part of these 5 patents in question that mention SFIO.

"Additional manufacturers, designers, and/or assignees of components and related technologies that may be employed in aerosol delivery device include"

The above does not necessarily imply that your statement will be relevant for SFIO. I can not say with any authority that it will not hold true for at least one of them though. We do not, however, have any evidence that it will...other than it was unlocked. And the fact that it was unlocked is circumstantial. Time will tell.

I suspect that most of those screaming "THEY HAVE 5 PATENTS!!!" are simply the new wishful thinking bagholders. I feel for them.

The statements are riddled with errors that are of large consequence. There is only one patent that was granted within a day. The others were over the past few years. More importantly though, these patents are NOT owned by SFIO. None of the 5 that have been posted over and over are OWNED by sfio. They are owned by RJR or RAI.

SFIO is mentioned in the section with the following sentence:

"Additional manufacturers, designers, and/or assignees of components and related technologies that may be employed in aerosol delivery device include"

That sentence is followed by so many companies I didn't bother even trying to count.

I'm not trying to say this is meaningless, but it is also certainly not what you are implying it is. SFIO DOES NOT OWN THESES PATENTS.

I forgot how amazing this board is. I may just start actively trading again just to have an excuse to enjoy these discussions.

And how often are these automatically updated?

I've seen this slow death before. I'll see everybody at the bottom. Might even pick up a good chunk of shares again at .0001 just because it's comfortable seeing sfio in my portfolio. Congrats to all that we re able to pull some money out of this.

I can't argue with that. In either direction.

They'll wait until it hits trips again. Why not? let it run up for no reason...Let it drop all the way down...Drop news. Churn away. Sure.

Or maybe it's dead?

I think if there was news coming....It would already be here. I think it's dead.

A lot of people holding onto millions of shares it seems.

I think this thing is dead