I replied since you wanted more current data on China covid.
I provided it. It is still into a second wave with an impressive amount of infection.
You have no response to that, when you yourself have at least twice that you expect new variants.
I point out several of your contradictions in your own writings, where you actually lay out your thoughts but you don't or cant explain the error, contradiction or weakness in your argument.
Instead, you change the subject with pure whataboutism.
You write that a phase 3 can't happen cause "seropositivity" as though one word is an answer, yet you warn us that the Pfizer next gen is coming as though - somehow - that molecule won't be subject to the same issues that Enanta's covid candidate faces.
You seem to suggest that it's viral decline that is the bar for approval when all evidence is that it is NOT the metric. You seem able to hold that thought when the Pfizer next gen candidate has not yet provided any such data in their phase 1 trial (have they even dosed participants yet?).
You seem to allege that where it is difficult to contrast viral load declines in dosed versus healthies as undercutting the efficacy of the drug but I suspect that you are aware that if it were in a more impaired group than healthies, or with a nastier variant like Delta or a lesser seropositive cohort the results would be more differentiated.
Rather than answering any of these contradictions you pivot.
If no partnership has been announced you must be right.
We will see what happens- nobody knows until it happens or it doesn't happen.
These things take time- as I suspect that you know.
Is there/has there been a market for Remdesivir? Was that approval based on viral decline?
The same for Paxlovid?
You see, I had thought that approval was based on outcomes.
Are further Phase 3 trials for covid possible? Pfizer and others seem to think so.
Should I believe Pfizer or you?
Your usual pattern is to scare, cast aspersions, create doubt.
Who do you like? Where have you plunked down your money? I don't recall having read that.
Yet many of us have been straightforward in that area with you but you only seem to be able to dish it.
Are you that insecure in your beliefs?
Dew posted to you in Biotech values but you answer with word salad.
"No deal, high seropositivity, Pfizer 2nd gen… going to be a rough road there."
---For a brilliant guy you don't express yourself very well. It's not even a sentence and where you were called for an explanation, here too you pivoted, avoided "The second post I was actually posing the question to you" or answered with more word salad without any clarification; "For the first point, I never commented on viral load reduction but actually antiviral effects".
--that's an explanation?
A guy with more confidence would explain clearly their position and be prepared to defend their thesis.
I don't see that happening in your posts.
It's just mostly about throwing stones.
I probably have the least amount of technical background in biotech compared to many others here.
I'm straight from the trenches; a guy who was infected and cured through his involvement in biotech- cured in a Gilead HVC registration trial.
I suspect that you have a deeper understanding of some of the technical aspects than I do.
So, here's my question.
Why don't you just share your views, explain them clearly and attempt to validate them?
I would find that helpful.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
