InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 11
Posts 344
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/01/2011

Re: J-Belfort post# 30124

Wednesday, 11/11/2020 6:06:21 AM

Wednesday, November 11, 2020 6:06:21 AM

Post# of 44690
As I was attending a medical crisis I have been out of the loop for a while and came back quite shocked about this decline....
All the more I appreciate your measured outlook!

As I am still trying to catch up with all the developments I wonder about this issues a friend sent to me while I was out. Do you have any insight as to his questions:

I suppose it was Pfizer's PR and a zillion articles it triggered that sunk Relief's stock price today.
My big question is: If Pfizer can PR top-line efficacy data after the DMC's 1st review, why can't Relief PR efficacy data after the DMC's 2nd review?


Relief also has the open-label clinical study data to provide increased confidence
.

Moreover PFE data is not very substantive:
Pfizer's over 90% claim is based on 94 confirmed cases out of 43,538 participants.
If a different group of 94 had been the ones to catch the virus, it would be a different number than 90%.

43,538 contains 463 different groups of 90 and only one produced the smash data.
It is therefore very rash to make this claim so early.
If it is OK for Pfizer to be rash, that should give a green light to Relief.

p.s.:
it seems strange that RLF is not publishing more aggressively especially since NIH is fishing for studies (unless data are unvconvincing..uggh)

https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-calls-clinical-researchers-swiftly-share-covid-19-results