Yes, I'm aware. I was responding to another poster, and was not...

Yes, I'm aware. I was responding to another poster, and was not creating any equivalency between the two companies.

And yes, it looks like aspects of the MSB trial design were poorly tailored: the current sentiment is their efficacy goals with the trial failed to take into account the rapid increase in standard of care in the patient category addressed by the study. It isn't even an indictment of the therapy itself, which in all likelihood does hold value, perhaps more so in other settings.

My point remains regarding chasing covid remediation being a double-edged sword. The same hype that disproportionately boosts anything that can address the crisis of the moment, can also disproportionately hurt it while humanity remains hyper-focused on covid. Many people will know MSB as 'that company with the failed covid remedy', because covid is simply more relevant in people's minds, than anything else MSB might be involved in. Something similar could happen to IHL if something goes wrong after EUA. But we all know that: it's a risky business.

EUA can be a fast-track to success, but also could be a fast-track to the higher chance of failure you mentioned.

IHL remains a good risk/reward proposal: I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe that.