Even if doing my homework led me to conclude that your assertion ("every covid antiviral was studied on the hospitalized moderate to severe patients first") was true it wouldn't change any of my own expressed beliefs:
"The Company proposes the study design. The FDA would not refuse any Company the opportunity to run a well designed test of a treatment for mild to moderate covid sufferers. They certainly wouldn't have done that in the initial months of the pandemic."
In its financial interest this Company could have directed its efforts toward what you described as "Covid drug studies on patients with the highest chance for success, patients with mild disease"...the low hanging fruit. And they decided against it.
The absolutely worst reason to do anything is because everybody else is doing it. Doing what makes sense to do should be one's priority. Treating a disease before it gets to the moderate to severe stage falls into that category.
You were asked the following:
"Do you agree with Pete that the government/FDA designed the B-COVID trial to fail on purpose?"
Your lengthy response didn't include an answer to that question (it's my contention that the government/FDA didn't design the trial at all), but it did include the following:
"It would be in any drug company's financial interest to begin their Covid drug studies on patients with the highest chance for success, patients with mild disease, but in this setting that was not possible for Brilacidin or any covid therapeutic."
Of course it was possible. It was as desirable to have a treatment for mild to moderate disease as it was to have a vaccine to prevent it. The idea that the "government/FDA" would act to suppress any attempts to run clinical trials on mild to moderate covid treatments strikes me as a fiction.
The "fact" that "every covid antiviral was studied on the hospitalized moderate to severe patients first", if true, wouldn't change my mind about that. Please provide any policy statements or procedural guidelines that support your assertion. Or are you relying on your asserted anecdotal evidence alone?
There's a long standing propensity for some to attribute the IPIX pipeline of disappointments to others. In every case there's an absence of factual support.
As the story goes this time around the Company either picked patients who were too sick to treat or didn't give those patients enough of the drug...in either case (pick one OR BOTH) because the FDA told them that they had to.
Not only does that not seem likely to me but I see no facts to support it.
I'm tryin ta think but nuttin happens......Curly
