Replies to post #205997 on Cytodyn Inc (CYDY)

[bluefish1]

Longs don't need to respond or counter any of those assertions. Whether LL has a chance or not is not based on the assertions of anonymous posters on a message board.

LL stands on its own based on the science and MOA. The claim that LL is not competitive, or won't be competitive later because it isn't now, is just a false flag. Logical fallacies won't determine LL's fate now or in the future. Some posters here can point out dozens of reasons why the company or the molecule won't succeed.

It only takes one approval for one indication, then the whole fallacy will be exposed.

[HyGro]

No, the claim is that if they make it to market, the treaters will be using other options with better efficacy and similar safety profile. For example, Regnum will have a very difficult time converting treaters to writing LL.

CoV failed to meet any trial endpoints. mTNBC data is dubious and the FDA rejected it for BTD and the SEC and the DOJ are investigating it for false and misleading reporting. There isn't clear data as to what is real -- lumped naive and R/R patients, trial and compassionate use, unproven model, its all unreadable. Thus the SEC and DOJ actions.

If a drug is not competitive it's not worth spending shareholder money commercializing it as it won't generate much revenue.

The data is the data unless it has been misrepresented and manipulated as in the case with LL's CoV and mTNBC data.

[Learning53]

NASH is a "KEY" - the 700 g results are warmly awaited. HIV, which sounded so promising, might not be as meaningful as other labs are talking about a "cure" for HIV.

BUT -"An announcement does not a cure make!"

In the meantime, There is some "mud" in the HIV water. What kind of results did Amarex turn over to CytoDyn. Were they worth the paper they were printed upon? Their sloppy execution does not fill me with anticipatory excitement. The receipt of those on March 3rd - were they a powerful blessing or further proof of Amarex's chicanery?

Finally, I still believe that long covid (PASC) is the best path forward in the absence of any "slam-dunks."
*A definite need
*A strong and growing population of PASC-people
*A first trial with obvious success in numerous areas
*A strong level of support for more leronlimab/PASC trials
*CytoDyn's exploration of PASC does not put it on a collision course with BP. Right now, our covid-cure explorations make us as A GIANT TARGET BULLSEYE, as success could potentially "knock over BP's vaccination/booster cash cow". BP will fight that tooth and nail!
*Trials should be easily filled as there are plenty of folks with PASC
*Trials do not take vast amounts of time to run - How many weeks were used before - was it eight weeks of treatment and is that an adequate amount (I'd defer to Dr. Recknor for that information)?
*Success in addressing the numerous manifestations of PASC give CytoDyn a foot in the door to explore using leronlimab to address associated maladies/afflictions/conditions.
*It's important to mobilize the groups of "PASC people" and keep them informed. Why - We can't allow the FDA to sweep the results generated quietly into a dustbin and discard them. We need a "ground-swell" of support to make sure our results receive an EUA or approval.
*We will also (probably) receive governmental blessing, as folks with PASC are becoming an expensive burden (through no fault of their own).

As long as the corona-virus-family runs rampant - PASC will be an on-going problem. One that is worldwide and, to a large degree, addressable (based on the first trial) by Leronlimab!

Go Leronlimab!!

IMO