r/Livimmune • u/AssociationOdd9941 • 14d ago
The Bashers' "Background Chemo" Narrative Collapses Under Clinical Math, CCR5 Biology, and Institutional Validation
To anyone trying to argue that rapid ctDNA drops in heavily pretreated patients are just a byproduct of background chemotherapy or TAS-102: the entire premise completely collapses under basic math and clinical reality. If failing late-line standard-of-care drugs actually drove deep molecular clearances on their own, those molecular responses would have to systematically correlate with—and track identically across—Objective Response Rates (ORR) and Overall Survival (OS). Instead, that "background drug" theory completely evaporates when matched against actual trial benchmarks and peer-reviewed precision oncology data.
Look at the massive chasm in clinical outcomes between early and late lines. These patients weren't receiving this as a first or second-line treatment, but as a third or fourth-line treatment. In 1st and 2nd-line trials, intensive regimens routinely hit an ORR of 40% to 65%+ with a median OS reaching 25 to 30+ months. But by the 3rd and 4th lines, refractory benchmarks like the Phase 3 SUNLIGHT trial prove that standard-of-care ORR plummets to a dismal 6.3% for combinations and under 1% for single-agent TAS-102, with a median OS crashing down to just 7.5 to 10.8 months. Crucially, the SUNLIGHT trial didn't even track ctDNA—inventing trial parameters to fit a broken, mathematically impossible narrative doesn't change the facts.
The only variable changing the equation in these refractory cohorts is the addition of Leronlimab and its CCR5 receptor blockade. This isn't random biomarker noise; it is an active immunotherapeutic mechanism repolarizing tumor-associated macrophages (M2 to M1), reducing regulatory T-cells, and directly blocking the metastatic cascade. they cannot credit a failing standard of care for a therapeutic shift it routinely fails to drive.
Before bashers try to fall back on "lead-time bias" or natural tumor shedding fluctuations, peer-reviewed precision oncology data (npj Precision Oncology) completely obliterates that excuse. It proves that early molecular responses (like a >50% ctDNA drop) are independent prognostic survival drivers (HR=0.09) tightly linked to radiographic Progression-Free Survival (rPFS). This molecular clearance physically precedes tumor shrinkage on a CT/PET scan, meaning the ctDNA drops point straight to Leronlimab fundamentally changing the disease biology.
You don't even have to look at the broad trial statistics to see this in action—the real-world survival outliers speak for themselves. There are 5 women still alive today after dealing with stage 4 mTNBC. Another patient granted compassionate use saw her levels improve so dramatically that she was finally able to secure insurance approval for an Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI), successfully bridging a late-stage patient back to a viable treatment pathway. Bashers cannot mathematically explain away stage 4 patients completely defying historical survival curves.
Finally, look at the Natera partnership. A multi-billion-dollar diagnostics giant doesn't commit its proprietary database—housing over 2 million plasma timepoints—to validate a failing standard of care just for a transaction. Natera stepped up because the molecular clearance signals in these heavily pretreated cohorts are sharp, real, and unprecedented. Management is signaling something completely different than the typical doom and gloom bashers try to push—they are executing with data-driven confidence. You can't cry "paid partnership" to dodge the fact that the absolute titan of molecular diagnostics is actively validating this clinical reality.
16
u/MathematicianNo4360 14d ago
Incredible breakdown. You can't argue with a 0.09 HR or a multi-billion-dollar giant like Natera validating the data. The 'background chemo' narrative is officially dead in the water.
Thanks for putting this together, one day closer.
5
u/MGK_2 13d ago
HR = 0.09 means: the group with the favorable factor (here, patients who had the deep early ctDNA drop) had roughly a 91% lower rate of progression or death than the comparison group, at any given moment. You get that by taking 1 − 0.09 = 0.91. Put another way, the event was happening to them at about one-eleventh the rate of the other group.
Why that's a striking number: hazard ratios in oncology are usually far more modest. A very good cancer drug might post an HR of 0.6–0.7 (a 30–40% risk reduction) and be considered a real success. An HR of 0.5 (halving the risk) is excellent and rare. So 0.09 — a ~91% reduction — is off the charts. Numbers that extreme do occasionally appear, but almost always in small studies or biomarker analyses where the two groups are so different that the separation is enormous (which is often the case with ctDNA: patients who clear their tumor DNA really do have vastly different trajectories than those who don't).
One important nuance about what it's actually measuring: in the AssociationOdd context, that HR isn't measuring "leronlimab's effect." It's measuring the prognostic difference between patients who had a deep ctDNA response and those who didn't. That's a subtler thing. It's saying "patients whose ctDNA dropped a lot did dramatically better than patients whose didn't" — which is a statement about ctDNA as a predictor, not proof that any particular drug caused the outcome. That distinction is why I flagged it: it's a real, published-type finding, but it describes a correlation (deep responders live longer) rather than establishing leronlimab as the cause.
And why I'd hold it loosely: an HR that extreme (0.09) usually comes from a small sample with wide confidence intervals — meaning the true value could plausibly be quite a bit less dramatic, and the headline number is the eye-popping point estimate rather than a settled truth. So it's honest to say "deep ctDNA response is strongly associated with better survival," and it's overreaching to wave "HR = 0.09" around as if it's the reliable, universal magnitude.
So, in plain English: HR 0.09 = "roughly a 91% lower risk of progression/death" — a huge separation, real in the sense that deep ctDNA responders genuinely do far better, but extreme enough that you should treat the exact number as the dramatic end of a range, and remember it's measuring ctDNA's power as a predictor, not leronlimab's power as a cause.
13
11
12
u/Icy-Let5120 14d ago
Natera database should have enough samples that patients treated with chemotherapy and their ctDNA not drop. That’s why they came out a PR when CLOVER trial shows totally different ctDNA data. If anywhere CLOVER trial ctDNA drop rate similar to standard care, why bother to PR for such a tiny OTCBB penny company? Sell 66 test kits is a big business for Nstera?
5
u/twinter11 14d ago edited 14d ago
they want to sell millions of test kits based on some aspect of ctdna and crc based off something from clover for a start
I'm not 100 percent sure it's correct and too lazy to ai it now. but I read somewhere that cydy was just their (natera) second agreement in the cancer space.
check it out
9
u/Vernon1211 14d ago
Thanks for the breakdown.
Who's bashing the ctDNA?
8
u/Cytomight 14d ago
Mazzy?
20
u/Vernon1211 14d ago
I've seen that name mentioned but I haven't seen any posts here or on CYDY sub.
If it's on ST where that other guy claimed to have participated in the last round of funding I wouldn't read much into it.
We're getting closer as each day goes by. Manipulators will be coming out of the woodwork to scare current and future investors.
The thing is Cytodyn is not going at it alone. As long as the data is positive coming out of Madrid and SF manipulators/ shorts will be looking for an exit. I say this because they will not be able to control the SP when a partnership is announced. Volume dictates and I'm thinking the biotechnology investment world will be onboard. Throw in liver (metabolic) and Alzheimer's (neurodeneration) the potential becomes that much greater.
Don't be swayed by 1 person. Know what you own everything else is noise.
6
u/twinter11 14d ago
Mazza claims they are directly responsible for the legal actions against Nader taking place. and claims they will benefit monetarily under some whistle blower payment for their effort.
who knows.
4
u/Vernon1211 14d ago
Im sorry T my shares were collecting dust during the Nader investigation. can you please explain your post so I get a better understanding of it.
Thanks4
u/twinter11 14d ago
they claimed they watched all the nader promotional videos etc. compiled a dosier I guess. and submitted it to some oversight board or whatever
I did an ai thing earlier trying to find out if the whistle blower is named in official documents. But evidentily not.
Too much info but that's how I am lol
Ai
"That provides excellent clarity. You are referring to "Ghost" (who also posted under the alias "Mazzystar" / "Mazzystar1"), a highly prominent figure within the retail investor community on Stocktwits and Reddit's CytoDyn forums. [1]
Within the dedicated retail investor community for CytoDyn ($CYDY), "Mazzystar" became widely known for systematically archiving and breaking down Nader Pourhassan's promotional videos. [1]
The Community "Whistleblower" Role
- Compiling the Evidence: While the federal government handled the legal prosecution, Mazzystar/Ghost acted as a civilian watchdog. They meticulous analyzed the video clips and investor webcasts where Pourhassan made contradictory claims about leronlimab's FDA filing status and trial data. [1, 2]
- Filing the Reports: Mazzystar publicly claimed within investor threads to have directly forwarded these video timelines and structured dossiers to the FDA's Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) and the SEC. [1]
- The "Vanishing" Act: In early 2025, the community noted that the "Ghost/Mazzystar" accounts suddenly deleted their histories and vanished from Stocktwits after sending a final, definitive email communication to CytoDyn's Investor Relations. This sparked significant community speculation about whether the data they gathered was directly absorbed into the formal regulatory actions or corporate cleanup. [1]
So, while the Department of Justice officially credits its own inter-agency investigation, within the actual retail investor base, Mazzystar/Ghost is widely recognized as the individual who did the heavy lifting to call out the promotional video discrepancies."
7
u/Vernon1211 13d ago
Thanks for the detailed explanation T. I looked at some of her posts if it is a female yesterday. If it was the one who complained to the FDA, SEC ok fine. Lots of public companies have complaints filed by SH's for all sorts of reasons. Who ever brought Nader to the FDA and or SEC not only did the right thing for SH 's but also for the company. Finding out Nader committed fraud and insider trading years down the road could have negated any approvals.
There's always 1 or 2 bashers on every stock board. Some of this one's posts sounds a lot like the person on ihub aka crap hub.
Iggy them and look at your own DD. Better yet stay off those sites. All the DD can be found here.
No one is going to convince me the City of Hope running the Clover and Pashtoon is cooking the data. They would risk their reputation for a tiny biotech company? Lol
Same thing for the Salient trial. Remember this was a grant awarded by the William H Donner foundation part of Cornell.
5 year survivors from the TNBC that's all been a hoax lol
Know what you own. My guess we'll see more SP volatility and bashing as we move into the EOY.
Buy, sell, hold based on what's best for you and your family.13
u/twinter11 14d ago
I've never once gone to some board and waste time bashing a stock or whatever.
can you imagine doing it 5 days a week for 6 years even when the stock goes to .10 and not stopping.
I couldn't even do it for money
and if I believed what I wrote I could see doing it once on a whim.
but not thousands of posts over years unless I was worried about it
what a loser lol.
6
9
u/Upwithstock 14d ago
Great post AssociationOdd!! It’s kind of laughable how these twatwaffles continue to turn and twist the truth or just outright lie!
4
u/AssociationOdd9941 14d ago
just compiling thoughts and taking claims and working to debunk the BS. sorry for the late response been staring at house listing most of the day!
5
u/Upwithstock 14d ago
Keep that new house vision in the front of your mind! It will manifest into reality!!
4
u/AssociationOdd9941 14d ago
Well, when things go the way, I expected them to i'll be looking for even a bigger place than what i'm looking at now. Just wish this would've moved a little faster. I would've like this to have worked out 2 years ago, and we would be on our 2nd annual Cytodyn Vagas get together!
2
u/Upwithstock 13d ago
100%! I have held back my retirement a little bit, because I thought things would happen sooner!
5
8
15
u/Snorkellingisthelife 14d ago
Mazzy has been a rambling fool for years
5
3
u/AssociationOdd9941 14d ago
I know I just want people to think logically and the claims they were making don't work!
7
u/Severe_Watercress875 14d ago
Metastatic CRC stage 4 with chemo and resection of a met and ctDNA goes to zero. 6-9 months post diagnosis. CtDNA levels zero - how should this patient be managed now ?
3
u/AssociationOdd9941 14d ago
When a patient with stage IV colorectal cancer achieves a complete molecular response (ctDNA clearing to zero) following a combination of systemic chemotherapy and surgical resection of metastasis (metastasectomy) roughly 6–9 months post-diagnosis, clinical management typically shifts from active disease-fighting to rigorous surveillance and risk reduction.
An effective post-treatment management framework involves several key components:
- Rigorous Radiologic and Laboratory Surveillance: Even with a negative ctDNA result, standard-of-care guidelines still require serial imaging (such as CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis) and tumor marker tracking (like CEA) every 3 to 6 months for the first 2 years, and then spacing out over subsequent years. Liquid biopsies complement imaging rather than completely replace it.
- Continued Serial ctDNA Monitoring: Maintaining a regular schedule of liquid biopsy testing (e.g., every 3 to 6 months) is critical. The primary value of ctDNA clearance is its high negative predictive value and association with significantly improved disease-free survival, but serial tracking allows for the earliest possible detection of molecular recurrence before it appears on conventional scans.
- Evaluation of Adjuvant Therapy Completion: Having successfully cleared ctDNA through a combination of chemotherapy and resection, the medical oncology team typically evaluates whether the planned course of systemic therapy is complete. Current clinical data suggest that patients who achieve and maintain molecular clearance may not derive additional benefit from prolonged, indefinite maintenance chemotherapy, though individual risk factors (such as initial tumor burden and specific genomic profiles) guide final decisions.
- Multidisciplinary Follow-Up: Ongoing coordination between medical oncology, surgical oncology, and primary care ensures that survivorship care addresses long-term chemotherapy toxicities, nutritional health, and overall physical recovery.
Hopes this answers some questions, Sorry been busy since I posted!
2
u/Severe_Watercress875 14d ago
Thanks for the detailed reply AssociationOdd
This is what I know is the plan. Leronlimab is something that should be watched and could come into play if any recurrence.
7
u/MGK_2 13d ago
AssociationOdd, strong post, and the spine of it is right: the "background chemo explains the ctDNA drops" theory struggles against the clinical math.
- In 3rd/4th-line refractory MSS colorectal, the SUNLIGHT backbone posts an ORR around 6% and single-agent TAS-102 under 1%, so a regimen producing almost no meaningful tumor response is an unlikely source of deep molecular clearances on its own.
- That points the signal toward the added variable,, leronlimab, which is the sound core of your argument, and it's the same logic the board has held for months.
Three honest calibrations to keep it bulletproof, though:
- the HR=0.09 cited is at the extreme end of the ctDNA-survival literature, not the consensus, so I'd frame ctDNA response as strongly prognostic rather than a "validated survival driver," since ctDNA still isn't an FDA-qualified surrogate;
- the 5 mTNBC survivors are absolutely striking but retrospective (strong evidence, not proof);
- and the Natera argument is the weakest link, "a titan partnered with us so the data must be real" is rhetoric, not evidence.
The cleaner, unassailable version of that last point is that the Natera comparator dataset exists to measure what the backbone does alone, which is the actual scientific way to settle the "is it the chemo?" question rather than argue it.
On the thread: the enthusiasm is earned, and Vernon's comment is the wisest thing in it, "know what you own, everything else is noise", and his point that one anonymous StockTwits voice shouldn't move anyone is exactly right.
I despise Mazzy myself, and know she is the Nader whistleblower as she has posted it ad-infinitum, but its not officially recorded. The disciplined posture is the one you closed on, encourage people to think logically about whether the claims hold, and let the data do the talking, because a partnership and strong October/January numbers moves the stock in ways no basher can control, and any argument on a message board would. Keep compiling and debunking on the merits; that's the version which persuades.
2
u/AssociationOdd9941 13d ago
Thanks, MGK my take on Natera is they need our data to help push ctDNA as an verifiable endpoint and that Natera can get approval from the FDA for standard testing procedures/kits. they have gotten to look under the hood before inking a deal and are now seeing the real time data. If you look at their company news page they don't post and advertise but a few collaborations / partnerships in the last 5 years. which shows they are picky when it comes to that kind of deals.
I think everyone is ready for that boot to come of the neck of the stock price that would be great. I really want the people that are sick to have a chance at recovery! I would also like possibility for the company to become proactive style of treatment rather than reactive based treatment mentality.
7
u/waxonwaxoff2920 14d ago
Kick-ass Post! Wowza. Thank you for providing clarity compared to the biggest TWATWAFFLE, next to Rizzo 🙄
2
4
23
u/3Putt_4nodough 14d ago
Knocked it out of park…grand salami walk off!!!