Memorializing an interesting comment or two........from the y board that seems appropriate here. I wish NRX could provide at least one FDA success story of an approval for what they were hired..... Sadly, there is still not any indication that NRX is even willing to acknowledge any wrong doing at all or any compromise ...
G-Money yesterday
This is heading to court and needs to end in divorce. No point in mediating new terms. You can't trust jj/nrxp to act honorably. Court will show that zyesami is fundamentally the Aviptadil formulation used for RLF-100. RLFTF can then use the trademarks of RLF-100 and zyesami interchangeably. That's important because the next move for RLFTF is to get listed as a sponsor on current trials. Next, get RLF -100 listed synonimously with zyesami. Finally, if possible, take over as primary sponsor of the trials and get all reports directly from the source. No more nrxp, no more jj, no more partnership. Upon approvals market globally as RLF-100. That's the best path for moving forward.
woodcrest yesterday
86. In September 2020, the same month the Collaboration Agreement was signed, Relief was forced to write to NeuroRx's counsel in an attempt to resolve Dr. Javitt's outright refusals to share basic information relevant to the parties' collaboration. Information that NeuroRx was wrongfully withholding included, but was not limited to, the following:
a. Information relevant to an audit and a pause in enrollment for intravenous aviptadil trials that had apparently occurred at Houston Methodist – the hospital that had generated tremendous early access treatment results. Relief was surprised to learn about these issues second-hand;
b. Information relevant to allegations by certain research organizations that NeuroRx "faces a growing number of challenges executing the aviptadil" trial and that it may be falling short of "protect[ing] patient safety and meet[ing] [its] intended clinical and business objectives of the study";
c. Information concerning the specific formulations of aviptadil that NeuroRx was using pursuant to the collaboration. As Relief expressed at the time, it was concerned that NeuroRx might be using formulations that "evade or lie outside the scope of Relief's issued intellectual property" – which would be harmful "to the overall commercial value of the drug"; and,
d. Information pertaining to whether Dr. Javitt was potentially diverting Relief's funds to his relatives. In particular, Relief learned that Dr. Javitt was directing funds provided by Relief to PillTracker, a company headed by his son, Zachary Javitt, that has no expertise relevant to aviptadil. PillTracker is a company focused on improving patient compliance with pill-based therapeutics. However, aviptadil cannot be administered via a pill (which is why the parties specifically contracted to develop intravenous and inhaled – and not pill – formulations of aviptadil). Thus, Dr. Javitt's diversion of funds to his son's company alarmed Relief. Likewise, Relief also explained that it was concerned by the possibility that Dr. Javitt was directing funds to Gail Javitt, Dr. Javitt's sister.
My opinion is reflected in my posts, and it is never advice to buy, sell or trade any securities. Do your own due diligence before purchasing anything in the stock market.
