...We Welcome You To The Resverlogix HUB withIn The AGORACOM COMMUNITY!

Free
Message: New Apabetalone Fabry Disease Publication

You are correct there narmc, we can agree to disagree.

The COVID link was pointed out by a group of 27? Universities that looked at over 20,000 drugs that could possibly have any effect on COVID. APB was 2nd of 63 drugs screened in that process. When those drugs were first being tested at Mt Sinai? hospital in NY our science team correctly pointed out to them that the trial they rapidly designed  would not work with APB as whatever animal they were using did not have ACE2 which is required for APB to work on COVID. Since then 2 peer reviewed reports have confirmed that ACE2 was required for APB to work on COVID. That find by that group of universities was money related. In the initial days of COVID there was collectively worldwide the largest amount of money spent on any one project in the world because COVID was thought to have the most negative effect on human existence in the history of man on earth at that time. RVX was one of hundreds of companies that benefited from that project. There is no oops in that whatsoever.

Stroke - At an AGM in 2012 or 2013 we talked about taking stroke out and putting CHF in BoM. Again money was the determining factor. In order to replace stroke they would have had to go back and do another PII with stroke taken out and CHF put in. At that time the discussion was made from a money and time prospective to go with the under powered study that we again failed. That was a management decision, not a scientists decision. 

Most every challenge we have faced has been rooted in money not science. Years before the manila envelope event RVX's scientists knew that APB would have positive effect on at least 8 different ailments. Not having the money to properly pursue APB's abilities in a statistically significant way is a management problem.

Hind sight is always 20/20 because then you know we should have done this or that a different way. From observation, what has been consistent through the years though, is trying to cheap out on the science side while paying market or higher on the management side.

All IMO, DYODD.

tada

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply