We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Ghia, thanks, it was the thread title that raised my eyebrow more than anything. I know our drug is not in the trial so I found that misleading. I would imagine it was a peer to peer comment as you say, but as the email is now gone I can only go on my 1st impression and recollection which was overall positive, but I remain cautious on the intent and the timing vis-a-vis trading pattern since last RNS. I'm not knocking the OP. Had the information been negative, which it could so easily have been, I would have been equally cautious. Information 'personally shared' cannot be relied upon, whether good or bad. If I'm wrong, which I hope I am, then I will be very happy.
I'd be very wary of anything that comes out from `Telegram` via ADvFN Guild. They don't take kindly to be questioned about some of the stuff posted on there. Not 100% sure why...
Personally I think the email was fake and which is why it was removed. Like the last one "Matt" added which had a strikingly similar ending.
Wasn't it also "Matt" who claimed to have had a long "conversation" last year with RM when the SP was dropping prior to P3 news which proved to be completely made up information?
Company news comes via RNS. Not from investors. Everyone has an agenda as Fruits pointed out. One thing is wanting news, but it's a completely another and illegal thing to make news up.
It's up to you whether you feel that the company have been forthcoming enough with information.
Fruits - As I mentioned earlier ref the Chris Butler email.
Without knowing the question that was asked it’s hard to fully decipher the answer.
On face value I believe his comment is referencing the help SNG have provided to the Principal trial by forwarding on patients that did not meet HT criteria and then once HT had filled they have directed enquiries to Principal.
Ergo Principal is not trialling SNG and his comments therefore are one of a scientific peer excited about the data that has been presented by SNG.
I see the original text of Chris Butler's email? has been removed from this thread, not sure why?
I read it when it was initially posted yesterday eve and got the jist of it. My immediate reaction, whilst 'well that's positive' was the use of the words 'incredibly promising'. I cannot, under any circumstance understand why a person in his *particular position* would open themselves up to charges of complete bias (which this is, singling out a drug in a trial) and unethical behaviour (again, communicating their personal views on a particular drug that is within a trial). I do not know what the context of the Chris Butler email was - was it a response to a question, was it a chat amongst professionals, or are we to believe that it was an email to an investor here, in which case (the latter) I would say that is incredibly unethical and unbelievable. My point is that although this sounds positive, there are 2 agendas at work with this share. I would be a lot more comfortable with the Chris Butler email if more context were provided....hoping someone can update with that in the coming days. GLA.
The majority of the information raised here hasn’t come from the company- so it has no validity ?
If company information was all we had to go on this forum would probably have shut up shop.
And in India if they are dosing in India It would be good PR to communicate to the world a UK company is out there giving people hope
If it doesn't come from the company there is no validity to it. Especially when it comes from someone who is invested here.
Potentially good news.
Shouldn’t that be an ‘RNS ?’
Yes a if correct and CCO news.
Information sharing with shareholders is woeful.
Wouldn’t something of this significance be RNS’d by Synairgen?
Im always sceptical of emails that tell you significant things the company hasn’t announced
This sounds like a promising development. I look forward to hearing more about it. Hopefully the naysayers can take a break for few days, try to allow this board to have a constructive discussion.
Wow.
gkb.... if I remember correctly, in one of RM's interviews last year, he explained that SNG and Principle were working together.... Principle sending patients to SNG trials and vice versa..... no doubt they have discussed their findings and thoughts over this time.
Schrow - having not asked the question it’s hard to completely understand the answer.
However I would have thought for the drug to be actively administered on the principal trial there would need to be an update to the clinical trials register or some form of announcement via the principal trial website.
The website is pretty up to date and no mention of SNG.
Whereas we do know SNG actively sent patients to the Principal trial if they didn’t meet the HT criteria and continued to do so once HT had filled.
So on face value I take the comments to refer to this.
It’s nice he was complementary about the drug though.
Thanks for dropping by and sharing this Nobby. Exciting news indeed!
The 'incredibly promising' comment is nice to hear!
Nobby - Unfortunately I think those comments relate to SNG sending patients in the direction of the Principal trial once the HT ended.
I’d love to be proven wrong.