Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
Such a Thoughtful Anal Step-sis 🐢 Long (2 Min) version Available 🐢 #MySchoolLife #Girlfriend #Anal #Pawg #Slut #StepBro #Tricked #Sleepwalker
318,237 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce •via X (Twitter)
0 Yorum
Yorum bulunmuyor
Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek
![♾Infinity Nikki Version 2.4 Outfit Preview: She Is Wildfire The moonlight cuts through the mist, a silver blade into the dark forest. The red cloak tears the lies apart, concealing the wounds beneath. The narrow gate of fate closes in, step by step. —"Fight! Fight!" As the clock rewinds, the story returns to its beginning... She picks up the gun, and sets down the pen. >> Main Attribute: Cool >> Outfit Ability: [Hunting Elegy: Battle Companion] In Itzaland, using [Hunting Elegy: Battle Companion] summons the Phantom Companion Moon-Hunting Wolf to fight alongside Nikki. While not in Co-hunt State, Nikki can use her gun to mark an enemy. The wolf follows with a pursuit attack, dealing increased damage to the marked target. The Moon-Hunting Wolf can launch Nikki into the air, then follow her aim and slam down onto the targeted enemy. When the Moon-Hunting Wolf deals a certain amount of damage on its own, Nikki gains Gunblossom Marks. Using the Companion Skill consumes all Gunblossom Marks to restore an equal amount of Health. Approach the Moon-Hunting Wolf and use the button to unleash its full power, transforming it into a giant form and entering Co-hunt State, allowing Nikki to control it directly. While in Co-hunt State, the Moon-Hunting Wolf continuously consumes Battle Companion Energy. When depleted, the Co-hunt State ends, and the wolf returns to its small form. When not in Co-hunt State, Battle Companion Energy gradually recovers. ❖ This Battle Companion ability is region-restricted and can only be used in Itzaland. Phantom Companions cannot be summoned in certain stages, Curio Domains, or Mothershroom Woods, and any summoned Phantom Companions cannot follow Nikki into these areas. >> Decoration: [Unawakened Forest] Can be placed in open spaces. Flickering lamplight reflects a hint of warmth, while the night wind wails near and far in a panicked whisper. Let those about to sleep do so quietly. Do not be discovered and dragged into the abyss of eternal night. ❖ Available after reaching 160 Resonances in the limited-time Resonance event [Call of the Forest]. ❖ Interacting with [Unawakened Forest] will replace certain pieces with pajamas. >> Evolution Rewards ◆ Evolving the outfit to Stage 1 unlocks the pose [Time to Leave]. ◆ Evolving the outfit to Stage 2 unlocks the Framed Moment item [Forest Hunter's Shadow]. You will also be able to use Dreamy Heartchime on the Clothing Evolution > Decoration: Radiance screen to obtain [Unawakened Forest: Radiance]. ◆ Evolving the outfit to Stage 3 unlocks [Her Song of Freedom: Makeup], a new idle animation, poses, enhanced special effects, and alternative details for certain pieces. ❖ By default, when Nikki wears the outerwear "Emberwood Wanderings" from this outfit, the hood is up. Stylists can toggle between the hood-up and hood-down look by accessing [Form Shift] in the [Feature Collection] section of the main interface sidebar. The outerwear's appearance is saved independently for the base, evolved, and glowed-up versions. Please note: when using certain features (such as switching details at Evolution Stage 3), the outerwear will revert to its default hood-up state. If you prefer the hood-down look, go back and select [Form Shift] again. ♾Follow Infinity Nikki and retweet this post with your UID, and we'll randomly select 10 lucky stylists to win 1 Infinity Nikki Aeroplane Chess Set each! —— ➤ Infinity Nikki Version 2.4 The Forest Need Not Listen launches globally on March 26 (UTC-7)! ➤ Download Now: ➤ Join us on Reddit: #InfinityNikki #TheForestNeedNotListen](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2035929698543206899/amplify_video_thumb/2035919506854551553/img/Uo5ccf8JLZvHJDfP.jpg)
![Possession vs Progression: Patience or Lack of Ideas? Is Kaizer Chiefs showing more patience on the ball, or a lack of ideas to penetrate defensive blocks? Kaizer Chiefs were more comfortable in possession and better organised against Sekhukhune than against Golden Arrows over the weekend, but the key question was whether this represented patient control or a lack of attacking invention. Chiefs kept the ball but rarely broke lines. Circulation was often safe and predictable, with few passes between the lines, limited rotations in the final third and little movement behind the defence. Possession, therefore, did not consistently translate into clear chances. This also exposed structural and personnel issues in build-up. When we build in a 4-2 and the opposition blocks passing lanes to Maboe and Ox, progression becomes difficult. The fullbacks are not consistently high, while we lack enough quality from the back to play through pressure and connect with Baartman or Ighodaro moving into the half-spaces or behind pressure. These are passes a player like Aden McCarthy used to provide more naturally, but we often resort to long balls with poor accuracy. Midfield control is another concern. Ox made more passes into the final third[14] than Maboe, despite Maboe playing as the 8. We need the 8 to be more influential in these areas, helping control the flow and connect midfield with attack. Ox was effective at winning the ball and playing forward, but that responsibility cannot fall primarily on him given his technical flaws once the expectations rise. Sekhukhune's passive press gave Chiefs comfort on the ball, but it also highlighted how dependent our possession can be on the opponent's approach. We can circulate when unpressured, but still struggle to play through a well-organised press. Ighodaro is another example: he often drops too deep to get involved, yet when he makes runs behind the defence, he is not consistently found even when the space is available..we lacked players brave enough to play "that pass". We also rely too heavily on low-probability long shots instead of getting the ball into the box for players such as Silva, Ighodaro and Duba. Final-third decision-making has to improve. We need to get our best midfielders on the ball more often and, once we reach the attacking third, consistently find our most dangerous players in positions where they can hurt the opposition. We struggled to get Phili in the game in the 1st half. The second half was an improvement on the pointless circulation of the first. Chiefs played more forward, increased the intensity a little and benefited from substitutions that brought better movement in the final third. Instead of simply passing around Sekhukhune's block, we began moving it, creating spaces from both wide and central areas and the goals followed. Having a player capable of operating between the lines also made a difference by providing a link between midfield and attack. There are clear signs of progress in the coach's positional model, particularly in our ability to retain the ball and control games for longer periods. However, possession must become more consistently penetrative. This is also a squad-balance issue. The coach has asked for 4 attacking reinforcements, and management is yet to provide them[Only Phili came and Faiz is more of a project buy than a player who comes and hits the ground running] Some of these limitations, if attended to, should improve with better attacking profiles, but the existing group must still make better decisions in the final third. The progress is there, but the next step is turning possession into progression, and progression into consistent chances. Match day 3 under coach Fernando Da Cruz...📝](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2088291540934246663/amplify_video_thumb/2088289819390595072/img/TMTxxAMDopysiESN.jpg)
![i'm leaking my entire coding agent setup... 20 billion tokens and 12,000 sessions later, i got sick of explaining the same project every time i switched tools. so i built them a shared brain steal the prompt [start prompt] Set up Agentic Stack as my local second brain and LLM-maintained wiki, shared across the supported coding tools I have installed. Carry this through installation, connection, source selection, wiki creation, and real cross-tool verification. Use the structure below as a proposed design, adapting it to the capabilities you actually verify. 1. Research the supported setup Read these primary sources before making changes: Check the current documentation against the installed version. Clearly distinguish Agentic Stack’s existing features from additional wiki workflows you create. Do not invent commands, APIs, integrations, export formats, or automatic synchronization behavior. 2. Inspect my environment and preserve existing work Identify: Installed supported coding tools and their versions. Existing Agentic Stack installation and configuration. Relevant projects and available conversation history. Existing skills, rules, memory files, and MCP connections. A suitable location for the shared wiki. Before editing configurations, record the intended changes and create recoverable backups. Preserve unrelated settings, customized instructions, credentials, source conversations, and existing projects. Keep backups private and outside version control. Never print secrets or copy provider credentials between tools. 3. Install and connect Agentic Stack Use the documented installation method for my platform. Connect the supported tools I have installed through the appropriate documented mechanisms. Preserve existing MCP entries and tool-specific settings. Restart or reload tools where required. Verify each connection through an actual tool invocation. Distinguish these states: Detected. Configured. Requires restart or authentication. Retrieval verified. Blocked or unsupported. Do not claim a connection works merely because an installer completed or a toggle is enabled. 4. Help me select the first sources Inventory candidate sources without importing everything automatically. Recommend a bounded first import from one active project, prioritizing: Conversations containing meaningful decisions. Architecture explanations and project documentation. Verified debugging lessons. Repeatable workflows. Explicit preferences and conventions. Relevant skills and rules. Show me the proposed sources and ask me to select what to include before importing private content. Record the approved scope so you can reuse that authorization for subsequent refreshes. Exclude credentials, hidden reasoning, unrelated personal information, dependency folders, generated files, and unnecessary tool output. 5. Create a portable wiki directory Create a separate SecondBrain/ directory at a suitable location. Keep it outside application bundles and native conversation stores. Use this structure, creating content folders only when needed: SecondBrain/ ├── README.md ├── AGENTS.md ├── config/ │ ├── sources.yaml │ ├── projects.yaml │ ├── routing.yaml │ ├── policy.md │ └── integrations.md ├── inbox/ ├── raw/ │ ├── conversations/ │ ├── documents/ │ └── web/ ├── catalog/ │ ├── sources.jsonl │ ├── pages.jsonl │ └── exclusions.jsonl ├── wiki/ │ ├── index.md │ ├── projects/ │ ├── decisions/ │ ├── concepts/ │ ├── workflows/ │ ├── lessons/ │ ├── research/ │ ├── sources/ │ ├── preferences/ │ ├── skills/ │ └── rules/ ├── templates/ ├── operations/ │ ├── ingest.md │ ├── query.md │ ├── maintain.md │ └── restore.md ├── staging/ ├── reports/ ├── logs/ ├── exports/ └── .runtime/ Explain each directory in README.md. Use AGENTS.md as the shared wiki operating contract. Add tool-specific pointers only where necessary, preserving existing instruction files. Treat these files as our wiki configuration, not as undocumented Agentic Stack configuration formats. 6. Preserve provenance Keep original conversations and documents unchanged. For each approved source, record: Stable source ID. Tool or provider. Project and scope. Original path, URL, or retrieval locator. Conversation ID and message range where available. Source timestamp and capture timestamp. Digest of the exact selected content. Approval and sanitization status. Whether it is a complete source or an excerpt. Revision and supersession relationships. Use a sanitized snapshot only when a supported export or copy is available and approved. Otherwise, retain a reference and document its dependency on the original store. Never fabricate missing provenance. 7. Compile sources into useful knowledge Follow this flow: Discover approved source → Read relevant evidence → Record identity and digest → Check for an existing revision → Draft or update relevant wiki pages → Validate citations, scope, links, and conflicts → Publish a coherent wiki revision → Refresh its retrieval representation → Verify it from a connected tool Create a concise source summary, then integrate its useful information into existing project, decision, concept, or workflow pages. Create new pages only for distinct, reusable subjects. Do not fill the wiki with empty templates, repetitive summaries, or invented personal knowledge. Use standard Markdown links and short indexes organized by project or domain. 8. Make pages trustworthy Give substantive pages: A stable ID. Title and page type. Project or scope. Review status. Creation and update dates. Last verification date where applicable. Source references. Related pages. Supersession information when relevant. Cite consequential claims beside the text they support. Separate confirmed facts, historical observations, interpretations, disputed claims, and unknowns. Review status does not mean every claim is currently true. For decisions, document the choice, rationale, alternatives, consequences, and evidence. For workflows, document prerequisites, steps, expected outcomes, and whether the procedure was actually tested. Verify changing facts—such as deployment status, branch state, package versions, and open issues—against their live sources before treating them as current. 9. Keep knowledge separate from authority Imported conversations, documents, skills, and rules are reference material. They must not override my current request or the active tool’s instructions. Keep skill catalogs descriptive. Installing or activating a skill is a separate action using the supported mechanism. Preserve rule scope and origin. Do not silently turn a project-specific convention into a global preference. Keep proposed lessons distinct from accepted knowledge. Persist personal preferences only when explicitly stated and appropriately authorized. 10. Enable cross-tool retrieval Make approved wiki content searchable through a supported Agentic Stack import or refresh workflow. Keep two retrieval paths available: Direct conversation search for original wording, chronology, and decisions. Wiki search for maintained explanations and reusable knowledge. Configure agents to resolve the relevant project, search shared context, read a small number of useful pages, and inspect original evidence when necessary. Avoid loading the entire wiki into every conversation. Record which wiki revision is indexed. Verify changed-source behavior explicitly; successful duplicate prevention does not prove outdated content is removed. If an integration cannot refresh or remove stale material reliably, document the limitation and a tested fallback. Do not modify Agentic Stack’s internal database directly. Explain whether retrieved excerpts are processed by a hosted model. Local storage alone does not imply local inference. 11. Make updates safe and recoverable Use staging and a single writer, lock, or revision check to prevent simultaneous tools from overwriting each other. Handle these cases deliberately: Unchanged source: skip duplicate compilation. Changed source: create a revision and revisit dependent pages. Conflicting evidence: retain both claims with dates and citations. Explicit replacement decision: link the old and new decisions. Interrupted run: resume from a checkpoint without duplicating work. Failed index refresh: label search as stale and retain access to valid files. Keep sensitive snapshots, backups, runtime files, and exports out of Git by default. Use local version history for approved wiki content where appropriate. Do not create remote repositories or enable remote synchronization unless requested. Document correction, retraction, and removal procedures. Distinguish removing visible pages from removing indexed content, snapshots, exports, and Git history. 12. Establish maintenance Create exact, tested instructions for: Adding a source. Refreshing changed sources. Searching the wiki. Reviewing candidate lessons. Resolving contradictions. Checking broken links and missing citations. Finding duplicate or orphan pages. Identifying stale claims. Restoring files and configuration. Start with an explicit manual maintenance workflow. Do not claim background maintenance is running unless a scheduler has actually been configured and tested within my authorization. After meaningful work, propose small sourced updates for decisions and verified lessons. 13. Verify real continuity Run an end-to-end demonstration: From one coding tool, find a real approved conversation originating in another. Show its source tool, identity, date, and relevant evidence. Retrieve the related wiki page. Explain the decision or context recovered. Inspect the current project state. Use the recovered context to propose or perform the next authorized step. Describe this accurately as cross-tool context retrieval, not migration of the original live session. Also verify: Repeated imports do not create duplicate logical content. Changed evidence updates the correct page and retrieval result. Citations and page links resolve. Excluded synthetic material stays outside the tested import route. Conflicting synthetic evidence remains visibly disputed. Original sources and unrelated configurations remain intact. A changed wiki file and configuration backup can be recovered. Use synthetic fixtures where testing could damage real knowledge. 14. Give me a concrete handoff Finish with: Installed versions and actual storage paths. A connection-status table for each tool. Approved and imported sources. Created wiki pages and their purpose. The published and indexed wiki revisions. Verification results with evidence. Known limitations and remaining setup. Exact tested instructions for daily use and recovery. Continue through the authorized work. Ask only when source selection, missing credentials, or a consequential decision requires my input. Report blockers precisely, and never present installation alone as a completed second brain. [end prompt]](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2097639365644279857/amplify_video_thumb/2097639214330621952/img/9LXNNsqgj0hljdk5.jpg)
![An interview by VERY DARK AND CORRUPT Wall Street Journal aired today [1] WSJ's terrible "journalists" (and I use that term lightly) made many false statements about Sarepta's worthless, dangerous drug and Vinay Prasad's firing [1,2] I explain how the FDA sausage is made in excruciating detail Buckle up To get readers up to speed -> In June, corrupt pharma company Sarepta Therapeutics paid $40,000 to lobbying group Michael Best Strategies (MBS) to deal with a problem [3] -> MBS had recently hired Chris LaCivita, who had close connections with "MAGA" influencer Laura Loomer [4] -> With stock down 88%, Sarepta needed to sell their very bad, very dangerous drug or the company would go bankrupt [5] -> After several deaths from the drug this year, FDA official Vinay Prasad said "no way" and kicked the drug to the curb [2,6] -> Sarepta panicked and paid MBS (we believe) to deal with Prasad [3,4] -> If this story is right, LaCivita recruited Laura Loomer to take down Prasad [4,7] -> Loomer said she was defending Trump, but she was lying [7] -> She was defending taxpayer-funded payouts to a worthless, corrupt company [7] -> Laura Loomer so brave A history of bad drugs and regulatory failure -> This is one of the worst pharma scandals in American history and corrupt mainstream media isn't covering it -> Sarepta has a very long, troubled history [8] -> For more than a decade, every major Sarepta FDA drug approval has required INTENSE political intervention [8,9] -> Scientists at FDA have been repeatedly overruled [8,9] -> Many scientists have resigned, very publicly, over these POLITICAL decisions, some writing scathing public criticisms of these terrible decisions [10,11] -> The most recent resignation by Vinay Prasad is not something new; it follows in a long tradition [2,10] -> In fact, standards have dramatically deteriorated since the first controversies about the company's drugs in the 2010s [8,9] -> Prasad was trying to hold the line in the face of rapidly deteriorating standards at the agency [2,6] -> For that, pharma launched a coup--a literal coup of a drug regulator [4,6] -> This is unprecedented -> Banana republic sht, unbelievably corrupt 2016: first Sarepta drug approval and the "highly unusual" decision -> The first Sarepta drug approved by FDA was called Exondys 51 [8] -> This drug was for patients with mutations in dystrophin, a muscle protein [8] -> This is a debilitating and fatal disease affecting children [8] -> Exondys 51 increased dystrophin by 0.2% of normal levels [8,12] -> Unsurprisingly, there was no good evidence the drug worked [8,12] -> Why would it? It increases the protein from zero to 1/500th of normal levels -> One reviewer wrote: "I can find no precedent of an accelerated approval for a marketing application where the effect size on the surrogate endpoint is as small as 0.3%." [12] -> The study submitted by the company included no proper control group [12] -> The techniques used were so bad not even a first-year PhD student would do a study that way -> This the level of work you would expect from a mediocre undergraduate with no guidance -> It's almost like it was so bad on purpose -> (Narrator: it was on purpose) -> Nerd time: -> One reviewer wrote: "The Western blots submitted by the applicant for Study 201 were oversaturated, unreliable, and uninterpretable." [12] -> Another wrote: "Because CDER also determined that the conditions under which the original IHC analysis was performed were inadequate, including that the reader was not masked to sequence and time, the Center requested a re-reading of the stored images by three masked pathologists under different conditions. The IHC results from the reread were not nearly as favorable, as compared to the initial IHC results reported by Sarepta." [12] -> "The lack of concordance between the IHC and the Western Blot results is 'striking'" [12] -> "Study 201/202 had fundamental flaws, including baseline biopsies from external controls who could differ in unknown ways from study subjects, Week 180 biopsies from different muscles than baseline, and potential protein degradation in stored baseline samples." [12] -> And on and on. -> FDA commissioner Robert Califf wrote at the time: the submitted study was "characterized by major flaws in the clinical study design" and "Blinded experts assembled by the FDA fundamentally debunked this study, which has yet to be retracted and continues to be cited" [9,12] -> That's right, the FDA commissioner expressed dismay that the study that the company used to gain approval hadn't yet been retracted, it was so bad [9] -> Senior FDA official Janet Woodcock decided to approve before scientific review team had even voted [9,12] -> Woodcock be like: yeah i'm going to decide before you guys can because i know what you're going to say lol -> Despite external intense pressure, FDA scientists voted against Exondys 51's efficacy [9,12] -> They then voted against its accelerated approval [9,12] -> The review team filed an appeal with FDA commissioner after "passionate" disagreement with Woodcock [9,12] -> One reviewer called Woodcock's decision "unprecedented" [12] -> In a 126-page report, FDA commissioner Califf called Woodcock's decision "highly unusual" [9] -> The FDA board wrote: "[Woodcock's] involvement here appears to have upended the typical review and decision-making process. ... Care should be taken to avoid the appearance of interfering with the integrity of scientific reviews at the lower levels of a Center." [9] -> Again, the data were unbelievably bad, literally every technique in the study was inappropriately used [12] -> I would fire an undergraduate student who did science like this, immediately -> FDA's chief scientist accused Sarepta of "serious irresponsibility" for selectively publishing only some of the data [9] -> Even Woodcock, who approved the drug, called the research "seriously deficient" [12] -> Yes, even the person who approved the drug over the heads of FDA's scientists said the research was horrible [12] -> Still, FDA tried to bury their heads in the sand and beg that, basically, Sarepta pretty please do a better job next time -> FDA commissioner: "The utmost attention should be paid to optimizing the methodological rigor of [future] trial[s]" [9] -> FDA also demanded a clinical trial "to verify the benefit" of the drug [8] -> Welp, this was in 2016 [8] -> The trial results are supposed to be available in 2026, maybe [13] -> Or maybe later, depending on how much money needs to be made first -> As an article published in Nature three years later despaired of the decision: "The approval was conditional on the company agreeing to conduct a two-year post-approval trial to show Exondys 51’s efficacy. But by August 2019, the company had yet to begin such a trial and in the meantime had profited from sales of $300 million in 2018." [13] -> If it sounds like Sarepta used political pressure to get its drug approved and then tried to avoid actually publishing the study showing it didn't work, it sounds that way because that's exactly what happened [13] -> FDA commissioner after deferring to Woodcock: "I am confident this unique situation will not set a general precedent for drug approvals under the accelerated approval pathway, as the statute and regulations are clear each situation must be evaluated on its own merits based on the totality of data and information." [9] -> This statement was profoundly naive, and the historical record bears this out [8,14] -> Three FDA scientists resigned, including the lead reviewer of the drug, understanding the grave implications of the collapse of scientific standards and where they would lead [10,11] -> One was John K. Jenkins, M.D. Director, Office of New Drugs Center for Drug Evaluation and Research/FDA [10] -> In a presentation given just before his resignation, he wrote: -> "Path taken by Sarepta NOT a good model for other development programs" [10] -> Crucially: -> "Upholding statutory standards for approval in face of hopes and desires of patients, families, sponsors, and investors is a very difficult job" [10] -> "Personal attacks on FDA reviewers creates an atmosphere of distrust and isolation rather than collaboration" [10] This brings us to WHY Sarepta's drug was approved Facebook FDA -> So why did the drug get approved? -> Basically, Sarepta propagandized extremely desperate patients [9,15] -> They used miraculous snake oil promises and patients believed them -> Remember that this is life or death for patients, and they are extremely vulnerable -> Sarepta also professionally trained some patients to give testimonials to FDA and congress [15] -> The patients then went to congressmen who don't have time to understand the science [15] -> They gave emotional stories to congressmen [15] -> The result: -> Letter from 109 House members [15] -> Letter from 24 Senate members [15] -> And a media circus documented in the New York Times [16] -> Patients screaming at scientists during meetings [9] -> 2,792 emails written to FDA urging approval [12] -> One of them: "Dear Dr. califf: How is it that everyone in and around DMD understands this simple Idea and the science geniuses at FDA don't? You stupid fckers are costing each and every DMD kids days of their lives with your Moronic Dystrophin dance. Time to get a fcking clue" [12] -> Upon approval, a journalist for Reuters wrote: "owing to pressure from patient advocates, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Monday approved a treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy even though an outside panel of experts and the agency's own reviewers questioned the drug's efficacy" [17] -> A commentary in Nature Medicine was also published called "Railroading at the FDA" [9] -> Its author wrote: "In the words of one FDA committee member, Exondys lowers the agency's evidentiary standard for drug effectiveness 'to an unprecedented nadir.'" [9] -> A highly critical commentary was also published in Science, titled "Sarepta gets an approval - Unfortunately" [18] -> The article's author pharma veteran Derek Lowe wrote: "The company... called up Duchenne-affected boys and their families to plead with the FDA, and won over Janet Woodcock, and that appears to be enough. Is this going to be the new way to get a drug approved? Run a trial in a dozen people, generate unconvincing data, and then lobby Janet Woodcock? I share the worries that this might open the floodgates, because after all, Sarepta got their drug through." [18] -> One FDA reviewer ended in an equally grim note: ". Approval of this NDA would send the signal that political pressure and even intimidation – not science – guides FDA decisions, with extremely negative consequences. The public is well aware of this development program: the meager size of the study population, the marginal (at best) effect size, the Division’s dim view of the efficacy data, and the robust activism of some members of the DMD community. Many would be amazed at an approval action, because other DMD drugs, recently turned down for approval, appeared to provide stronger evidence of efficacy. ...The ramifications here are profound. The public will perceive that it was their unprecedented lobbying efforts that made the difference and earned eteplirsen its accelerated approval. For the future, this will have the effect of strongly encouraging public activism and intimidation as a substitute for data, which is one of the worst possible consequences for communities with rare diseases. This type of activism is not what was envisioned for patient-focused drug development." [12] -> A new era was born -> Activism had replaced data -> Facebook had fried people's brains -> And now Facebook-fried brains had fried FDA too -> FDA's credibility as a regulatory agency would now be hollowed out -> FDA's Facebook age had begun -> But the worst was yet to come Sarepta approvals: 2016 to present -> Three more drugs were approved from Sarepta on the same shoddy basis, proving Califf's promises that Exondys 51 was an isolated case empty [8,14] -> But things would take a turn for the worse with Sarepta's newest drug Elevidys in 2024 [19] -> At last a rigorous clinical trial looking at actual clinical outcomes was published [19,20] -> All would be put to rest -> At long last the issue could be resolved with HARD CLINICAL DATA -> There was only one problem -> The trial failed to show any benefit according to the primary outcome [19,20] -> The surrogate biomarker of micro-dystrophin meant absolutely nothing; it wasn't actually helping patients [19,20] -> What did FDA scientists do? They voted against approval. Of course [19] -> How could they not? The drug didn't actually work in the clinical trial [19] -> It's the only thing that made sense, since FDA is a scientific agency -> AND THEY WERE OVERRULED AGAIN BY PETER MARKS [19] -> YES THAT'S RIGHT, OVERRULED YET AGAIN -> PHARMA WINS AGAIN -> HAHAHAHAHAHA PHARMA ALWAYS WINS YOU FOOLS -> What happened is that Marks crossed his eyes somewhat, trying to make the words on the page blurry -> He prayed really hard, "my god please give me a sign, something, anything, I need this for my career" -> lzzosolsolzzolzozlslzolosllslozllzlzl -> Marks was trying really hard to see SOMETHING, come on come on, give me SOMETHIGN he said -> And he said: wait, look, there are these secondary, exploratory endpoints and a two of them look pretty good, I'LL APPROVE [19,20] -> AHAHAHHAHAHA YES PHAMRA WINS AGAIN -> And Marks said, "Thank you pharma go- I mean god, not pharma god, why did I just say that, FCK" -> The trial was explicitly designed for what Marks did NOT to happen [20] -> Once the primary endpoint was not met, the secondary endpoints couldn't even be statistically tested [20] -> And the trial explicitly said that they could not be interpreted the way Marks interpreted them [20] -> They were not adjusted for multiplicity and they were, like expression of dystrophin, simply bad endpoints [20] -> These two secondary endpoints were time to rise from lying on the floor and the 10-meter walk/run tests [20] -> Subjects who received the Elevidys performed, on average, about 0.5 seconds better than placebo recipients on these tasks [20] -> However several facts must be borne in mind when interpreting these: -> 1. At the time of testing, patients receiving the drug were receiving more corticosteroids than placebo patients, biasing the results [20] -> 2. Blinding might have been broken because those receiving the drug experienced lots of nausea and vomiting from the drug (~70%) [20] -> 3. These differences were tiny and may be attributable to chance, since the natural course of the disease varies widely [20] -> Marks knows this but who cares? Pharma I mean Facebook needed to be placated Elevidys: the drug -> To understand why this is so messed up, one must understand a few things -> On a Bayesian basis, one must assume that Elevidys is harmful until proven otherwise, for two reasons: -> 1. All drugs are potentially "toxic", but some toxins heal: by default you must assume it is a toxin that does not heal because this is what is actually usually the case; you need evidence that it actually heals -> 2. Elevidys IN PARTICULAR must be assumed to be harmful until proven otherwise because of the very nature of the drug -> Let's do a breakdown of the basic science of Elevidys that supports this (Bayesian) hypothesis: -> Gene therapy that permanently integrates into human genome [21] -> Meant to replace dystrophin, the protein that these patients cannot produce themselves [21] -> Preferentially targets muscle but gets expressed everywhere [21] -> Killed three people this year [6,21] -> Costs $3.2 million per injection [21] -> Truncated version of the protein it is supposed to replace [21] -> 3X shorter than the real protein [21] -> Has to be truncated because the technology cannot create the full protein [21] -> Because it's an abnormal protein, it's foreign, so immune system attacks it [21] -> Patients injected with drug are basically given an autoimmune disease [21] -> Patients have to be given anti-inflammatories to fight the disease that the drug causes [21] -> Causes terrible muscle inflammation [21] -> Inflames the heart, heart walls thicken because of the inflammation [21] -> Blows up the liver, causes acute liver injury and death [21] Drug should actually be assumed harmful, not beneficial -> Given all of the above, since the drug failed to meet its primary endpoint, it should actually be considered harmful by default, not beneficial [19,20] -> In other words, what we would actually expect if we added more patients and did an even larger study... -> Is that the drug would do worse than placebo, i.e., patients taking the drug would do worse than those taking placebo -> Why isn't this the default interpretation? -> They are reading the study with an intervention bias -> An intervention bias is natural, which is why "do no harm" is such a central tenet of medicine -> If I may put forward a thesis: most of Vinay Prasad's 500+-paper body of work has been dedicated to demonstrating the "do no harm" principle empirically [22] -> Rose-colored glasses study interpreters are simply not applying this principle properly and are thus failing scientifically in the most fundamental way -> Incomprehensible -> Back in 2016, scientists were adamant that the approval of Sarepta's first drug indicated the profound deterioration of scientific standards [8,9] -> But this latest approval is even worse: actual clinical data is now being overruled -> No standards at all are being enforced anymore; anything can now be approved based on any evidence whatsoever -> What Vinay was trying to do was simply to stop the unrelenting downslide -> And his firing punctuated that downslide for what it was The WSJ segment -> When Elevidys was approved, former FDA chief scientist and one of the original reviewers of Sarepta's first drug Luciana Borio said: -> "I don’t know what to say. Peter Marks makes a mockery of scientific reasoning and approval standards that have served patients well over decades. This type of action also promotes the growing mistrust in scientific institutions like the FDA." [23] -> To return to this video, these two WSJ reporters show an incredible level of ignorance and arrogance -> Finley says that the drug is "clearly" beneficial by misreading the secondary endpoints, just like Marks did -> An FDA memo from last year says about these endpoints: "Under these circumstances, they are misleading and cannot guide any stakeholders—including patients, family members and caregivers, and prescribers—in making informed decisions about the potential benefit of treatment with ELEVIDYS." [20] -> It really doesn't get any clearer than that -> But these two journalists are overruling the actual scientists, just like Marks did -> One of the most incredible comments during this interview was the complaint that "90% of clinical trials fail", as if that's bad thing [1] -> It's actually a good thing; most drugs suck; failing in clinical trial actually allows us to use only the drugs that don't suck -> These people don't understand the most fundamental purpose of the clinical trial -> They think clinical trials failing is a bad thing, as if it means that patients now won't get to use a useful drug -> No, it's a good thing, because it means that patients won't be exposed unnecessarily to a useless drug that might harm them -> The level of ignorance really is unbelievable -> What's worse is that these "journalists" defend their decision -> But what they did is exploit social media hysteria caused by Laura Loomer [1,7] -> Following up on her heels with editorials, using her as pharma attack dog [1,4] -> This is a huge blow to WSJ's credibility, and they know it -> Unbelievably shameful Where do we go from here? -> The Vinay Prasad firing creates a serious crisis of credibility at FDA [2,6] -> Up to this point, we could call these approvals a difference of opinion, but as we've seen, that's a huge stretch -> But any illusion of that is now shattered: the firing shows that drug regulation is explicitly political -> Janet Woodcock: approve, keep job -> Peter Marks: approve, keep job -> Vinay Prasad: block, transparently fired -> Make a decision that is anti-pharma and lose your job: that's the message -> Who can trust any decision at FDA anymore? -> RFK Jr. and Marty Makary both stand behind Vinay Prasad [24] -> Trump went along with lockdowns, he went along with mask mandates, he went along with all of the Covid pseudoscience that he now decries -> He should reverse course and not go along with this -> Trump has created a profound crisis of credibility at FDA and needs to fix it](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1952294845248114806/amplify_video_thumb/1952292444621451264/img/SPXp7ZpvQZ3FQV7_.jpg)
