Thanks, RTBhub, I read what the lawyers had to say and it seems to boil down to their summary paragraph - "don’t call subgroup analyses from failed studies “really strong” results."
My initial thoughts:
1, Subgroup or not, why didn't these 3 lawyers acknowledge the amazing success of LL in reducing mortality after 7 and 14 days? Subgroup, large group, whatever, have they ever seen better results? If you're looking for something, anything to fight a virus in a pandemic, why would you NOT get excited about such a strong - and completely SAFE - drug like LL?
2. Why didn't these lawyers question why Cytodyn gave only 2 injections and not 4? Since they mention NP's alluding to the possible results at 3 weeks and 4 weeks, why didn't they say something like, "Yes, NP did raise an interesting point, I wonder why they were limited to just 2 doses?"
3. Why didn't these lawyers acknowledge our subgroup was overly weighted by 3:1 with the most vulnerable (elderly) patients? Did they not find it at all noteworthy that LL treated the sickest with such great success?
4. Instead of dropping dynamite (FDA letters) on minnows (CYDY), did these 3 lawyers ever castigate the FDA for allowing Pfizer and etc to slide on not releasing their vaccine safety data? Did they ever question why Pfizer was allowed to roll their control and test groups into one large bloc of patients, something that is NEVER supposed to happen? Did they ever criticize the FDA for approving Remdesivir? Did they ever admonish the FDA for not approving any other therapeutics besides Remdesivir, a decision that has led to 100's of thousands of deaths and untold suffering?
Amazing how these lawyers can't see the forest for the trees. They hold a small start-up biotech with no commercial footprint and no access to patients to the most grammatically correct phrasing in a Proactive video with an audience in the hundreds while keeping their mouths shut about the most abominable handling of a viral pandemic in history.
