A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Okay. And that you were willing to share what you knew with leadership at NIH, but that you couldn't share it. You had to have some kind of assurance that it wouldn't be shared more broadly.
-
I don't recall this, but he may have been wanting a copy of the paper that I just mentioned. I may have sent it to them. I don't see why I wouldn't. The big question would be whether Gilead would have a problem, not that I would have a problem with it.
-
So what's the confidentiality agreement when you're --
-
So when the journal tells you the paper is in press, they say you're not allowed to report it until it's published. So to send the paper around to other individuals in the final form could be breaking that confidentiality agreement.
-
2026-04-10 09:00
Christina Salazar
And so what information did you have from the paper? DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com
-
So the paper did a comparison of the effectiveness of remdisivir against two HIV drugs, lopinavir and another drug, which I'm blanking on. There had been several reports by Chinese researchers that the second drug was effective in treating SARS coronavirus. Personally, again, I'd have to reread the papers. I haven't read them in years. But my recollection is that the papers compared the treatment of this HIV therapy to historic controls. And so they didn't have as many males in the study, in the two comparisons. Males have more severe disease, so it looked like this HIV therapy was effective. It was ritonavir, the other drug. And so the Chinese were planning on using massive treatment regiments in their population, using this HIV therapy, and the paper clearly shows that that therapy doesn't work.
-
They were going to use it on what?
-
Humans.
-
But for all coronaviruses? For flu?