I would like to thank you for using this study, that's one I had kept aside for later...
Digging deep into the guts of this very same study, I will prove Monday 4 points for Cytodyn's trial:
(1) ICUs contain less than 10% of the milder patients (called "severe" by Cytodyn), not 33% as you suggest
(2) To the contrary, 55 to 60% of their patients are way too critical and excluded from Cytodyn's study (excluded by their criteria, too much risk) - this proves quantitatively a point I have been making many times that this trial doesn't address high-risk patients, no hope there
(3) The consequence is that ICU mortality is way above what Cytodyn could expect for trial placebo patients - adjusting for these 2 differences above, this study proves that the mortality of Cytodyn's "critical" patients shall be around 32% only
(4) Keeping your pessimistic severe/critical ratio assumptions, this will result in a placebo mortality of 25% - or 21% if we split 50/50% the severe/criticals - or 17% if we align on the average of the mixes reported by all worldwide research papers
Meaning, once again and whatever the mix chosen, that Leronlimab, with 2/3rd of patients in a trial with 22% combined mortality, performs not differently than placebo. Like saline.
Exactly in line with the previous Cytodyn COVID trial which got absolutely no approval in the US nor in any country worldwide. We had predicted there again based on statistics that it would be a total failure despite the huge positive press releases by the company...Numbers don't lie and must be used to weight every medical theory, even the most attractive ones.
Stay tuned, this explains why the CEO is not disclosing to shareholders the trial mortality information that is sitting on his desk.
