No clue. I have been one of the most vocal against the current system per grant requests as IMO it is no better than the ol' FDA gamesmanship of slow, slower, and then take a rest before we slow down even more. I write a lot of posts knowing that quite a percentage of readers will hate it but that it should cause a lot of discussion. Reflect on how little discussion goes on most boards, not just rants at one another but real discussions about the investment, and you will understand why I try and make people think and react. I wrote the following today reflecting my views as it does expand on a post I made a day or two ago. So far 75 people read it and nobody responded. I think most on these boards are really just zombies:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement from Inka regarding the grant review process per your post is IMO the epitome of the nearly criminal process grant requests apparently go thru:
“This process takes several weeks, so there is no newly submitted grant from one company that is reviewed differently from, or faster, than all the others."
From this statement, all grants appear to be blindly put into a bin and pulled out at random (or by order of submission) for review. Then to make matters worse, she says "no newly submitted grant from one company is reviewed differently from another.
Now take that logic (or what I think is more illogic) and apply it to any situation you can think of and tell me any other that is so inane. You have a big contract to award (lets say for missles), do you review Lockheed or Raytheon's bids more seriously, faster, and more thoroughly than you do the bid from ABC missle and septic tank cleaning company? Of course you do!! Why isn't this the case with grant requests? There is only so much time, why spend it on drugs that have shown no outstanding results to date?
What is the purpose of paying for RBLs if their results are put in the stack with all other lab results submitted that were run by who knows whom? Is there no pre-screening of grants, just as there was pre-screening of drugs to see which were most probable to work against CV19, so that the grant committee could spend their time most efficiently?
The IPIX request shows data derived from INH labs nearly wiping out CV in both human lung and kidney tissue, showing a likelihood for a very high SI, having a very solid safety profile in prior trials, and yet it is stuck in the stack with joe sh** the ragman and their plea for funds for a drug that has shown what? Where are the test results that make these requests even worth reviewing?
To sum it up, if a piece of crap like Rems... has become the savior drug for CV than Alfred E Neuman (hint - MAD magazine) should be running for President. The entire process would be comical if many tens of thousands of patients weren't dying.
I will give no slack to Inka Dinka and her panel, the INH, or any other bureaucratic organization running this CV Keystone-Cops fire drill. Whoever gave all those funds to the BPs should be tried and shot IMO and all the BP execs that took it, knowing they had nothing to offer but would benefit immensely on a personal level, should also be brought to justice (shot) as well.
We may be in a holding pattern due to lack of B-IV to start a trial at the current time, but even if that is the case the grant review process IMO reeks of the same old FDA bullshit to proceed at the slowest pace possible, form as many panels as possible, and everybody cover your asses so no blame can ever be directed to a single group.
I am not necessarily slamming Inka, I am slamming the process. If she is part of the group clamoring for this process, then I would say she is definitely part of the problem.
AI
