As a follow on to my last post, a lot of controversy continues to swirl in medical circles around the issue of HCQ. It's not every day that a study involving nearly 10,000 patients leads to the withdrawal of two influential papers from elite medical journals.
Digging deeper, it's interesting that some of the initial concerns came from apparent data discrepancies in the Australian hospital segment of the data. A lot of other inconsistencies then began to surface. The three authors who had analyzed the data asked for source details, the fourth author (listed second on The Lancet paper) refused. So the two papers were withdrawn at the request of the three authors.
An ongoing prospective study of HCQ by the WHO was halted for a couple of weeks due to safety concerns. It has now resumed. Other studies in Great Britain and India were not stopped because the DMC's involved in those studies took a peek at the data and found no evidence of increased mortality or cardiac issues in the HCQ arms.
So, why did this happen? Some are saying there might have been just a teeny dose of TDS at both the data collection level and the journal editorial staff. Others, that it's a plot to keep an off-patent medication from realizing its full potential in the poor populations of the world that need it most. For the sake of science and all of us, let's hope neither of those are true and that any needed corrective actions are taken. Here's a link to a good analysis for any who are interested:
https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/04/lancet-retracts-controversial-hydroxychloroquine-study/
Meanwhile, as I said many posts ago, I do not consider HCQ to be a competitor or a threat to rem-L. It may prevent some cases or it may help some others, that's great. I suspect it will work best in healthier cohorts, and the 1000 daily deaths despite its current availability by Rx suggest it isn't meant for everyone. And it's never going to snatch ICU ARDS patients away. That's the rem-L population we need to focus on. That's the population for which there is currently no good treatment available. Not HCQ. Not remdesivir. Not convalescent plasma. Not anything else on the horizon other than remestemcel-L, imo, though let's keep a careful watch.
The other poster tried to make a big deal out of the fact that Dr. Mehra, an emminent Harvard-affiliated physician, has done some consulting work for Mesoblast - and fully disclosed it. I say bravo!, expertise and guidance needed and procured. And I like the list of other companies he has worked for... Abbott, Medtronics, Janssen (which is owned by J&J)....
Eminent physician A talks to prominent CEO B... Any US partner will also have to have some cardiology muscle given the Mesoblast pipeline. My list of potential US partners / suitors just got a little longer.
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- MSB
- Analysis of the EAP
Analysis of the EAP, page-485
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 586 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
NEWS
Is oil undervalued?
Add MSB (ASX) to my watchlist
(20min delay)
|
|||||
Last
92.5¢ |
Change
0.010(1.09%) |
Mkt cap ! $1.056B |
Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
90.5¢ | 94.0¢ | 89.5¢ | $4.970M | 5.436M |
Buyers (Bids)
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
1 | 18877 | 92.0¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
92.5¢ | 6795 | 1 |
View Market Depth
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
1 | 105 | 0.940 |
3 | 135977 | 0.935 |
3 | 43808 | 0.930 |
4 | 33558 | 0.920 |
2 | 21550 | 0.915 |
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
0.900 | 200 | 1 |
0.920 | 200 | 1 |
0.935 | 20070 | 2 |
0.940 | 55000 | 2 |
0.950 | 5000 | 1 |
Last trade - 16.10pm 08/08/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
Featured News
MSB (ASX) Chart |