Then don't respond. You must have a guilty conscience.

Which is why you should do your own due diligence and not listen to pumpers.

Not everyone against CYDY is a short. Some like me dislike lies and respond to restore clarity and science.

1. The drug works. In HIV, yes. In COVID19, no. It MISSED THE PRIMARY ENDPOINT

2. NASDAQ uplisting in process. Unlikely. IS NOT MEETING CRITERIA.

3. MHRA is positive on funding trials for EAMS patients in the U.K. MORE GOEBBLES DOUBLESPEAK.

4. NASH trial to start soon. That is a problem as the company is running out of money, and has no expertise in NASH. Most importantly, SCIENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT NASH.

5. Long Hauler Study to start soon. SEE 1 ABOVE. WON'T WORK.

6 At least 4 journal articles submitted for publication. YET NOTHING PUBLISHED.

7. Leronlimab crosses the blood-brain barrier. SO WHAT? NO SCIENCE TO SUPPORT ANY CNS INDICATION.

8. GILD bought a comparable drug platform with an inferior safety profile for $21 billion. BUT IMMUNOMEDICS DRUG WORKS, LMAB IS NOT AS GOOD. IF LMAB IS SO GOOD, WHY HAS NO PHARMA COMPANY APPROACHED IT? NO VC?

9. MANAGEMENT HAS NO DRUG DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE. ONLY EXPERIENCE IN BEATING WIVES AND SELLING FAKE INDIAN ARTIFACTS.

In my view, presenting only one, positive, aspect of a company, or cherry picking data, while ignoring the negatives, is tantamount to being deceitful. A balanced article should present both the negatives and the positives.

Very slim. One has to do ones own due diligence. Saying that since someone lent them 20 million, it must be good is very foolish. And the company CEO is a felon who was convicted of wife beating as well as selling fake Indian artifacts. And they release data (or not release data, to be precise, very selectively). So, yes, they are liars.

Since the trial missed its primary endpoint in phase II, the FDA will ask them to conduct at least one phase III study (with 90%) power. Which means more patients, longer timelines, and more money (which the prodigal (wasteful) company does not have much of (see 10K released last week). If they could not meet endpoints in Mild/Moderate patients, chances of meeting it in the Phase II/III severe patients is even less likely as the patients are much sicker.

Let's see if they get emergency use authorization. If they don't let's see if you have the humility to publicly acknowledge that. i will if they do. And you buttress my point that MM and Severe patient trials are different and cannot replace each other. So you ended up supporting exactly what I've been saying.

Sigh! You just don't get it. THEY MISSED THE PRIMARY ENDPOINT. Secondary endpoints don't get you approval. Your ignorance of clinical trials is profound. Once again, you can miss all endpoints and still go to phase III so long as there is no safety signal. And don't bring Gilead into this. Wag the dog and distract the issues. AND YOU ARE WRONG - PHASE III IN CRITICAL WILL NOT GET APPROVAL FOR MILD/MODERATE. THAT IS A LIE.

Hopefully no one listens to you or they would have lost money.

I have been in the Pharma industry for 22 years. Am the CEO and Chief Medical Officer of a couple of companies. I know clinical trials much better than you. You should have checked my profile before making that stupid statement. Looks like you just don't understand clinical studies. THEY MISSED THE PRIMARY ENDPOINT. Any study can go to phase III if they don't have safety issues. But phase II endpoints usually reflect what will happen in phase III. AND YOU ARE BEING DECEITFUL. The Phase II study they reported was in mild/moderate. They are doing Phase II/III in severe patients. DONT MIX STUDIES. Hopefully no one listened to you or they would have lost money.

Your reply makes no sense. You give them credit - for what? They missed the primary endpoint, so why are you trying to spin it as "they released positive data"? The stock has gone down because the street can see through the lies and charades the company peddles. As authors, we should not peddle such untruths here.

Looks like shorts were right and you were wrong.