The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen 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.
Scinv - Surely as a scientist you know that the science is never 100% conclusive there are always confidence intervals. There is still more to figure out about the world around us than what we have already worked out.
Of course there is risk without risk there would be no money to be made.
You talk as if you know all the answers and that RM&co are idiots for pursuing this treatment.
If that is the case write your paper and publish it for peer review and save everyone time and money.
Curious to know your opinion on Holgate, you are obviously not a fan of RM.
For me it was interesting to watch Holgate switch his vocabulary from we hope, we predict, we theorise to ‘We Know’
That is significant for a man of his caliber he is very precise with his words.
There is always someone prepared to
listen and able to help
https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder.htm
Don't listen to me, listen to RM.
First he could not believe that it showed positive results in patients on oxygen, then it was all about early with HT and activ 2, then oxygen again because it needs a fire to put out, then TW comes out with plans to do trials in ICU which apparently RM also suggested in the past (but they did not want the RECOVERY platform). They totally know what they are doing.
But at least I'll be fair. This isn't straightforward, it is you who likea to pretend that it is.
I very much doubt the trials by Synairgen are not being conducted in a way that’s likely to provide the best results outcome.
But I’m sure the green box man could write to them to discuss where in his opinion his knowledge is superior to theirs, they might even offer him a position, but I doubt it.
Good to see that you understand that there are risks. Then obviously you understand that it may not work and that obviously relates to science, some of it we discussed today with opportunity of matt posting that paper. Yet you still insinuate that the the science is fully supportive without actually saying it.
Reminds me of someone. Are you sure you are not RM? :)
I look forward to hesring about synairgen and "operation dragon" and how that relates to the sng001 and covid.
Scinv - That was a conversation about RISK where I clearly stated the biggest risk to the company is that it does not achieve approval for the drug. I was not going to provide the exhaustive list of factors that would lead to that outcome, there's no point the result is the same.
I then challenged you to find me a scientific publication that showed that IFN will not work for Covid. It was a bit of an unfair challenge since none of the IFN studies which would have enough data to make a clear cut statistically significant result have completed yet. Oh and 3 of them are our own studies.
The paper you are discussing which lets be clear you didn't even post to the board is a piece in the puzzle to understanding the bigger picture here, in isolation it means nothing when combined with research that is ongoing it might help targeted therapies.
Remember operation DRAGON? I doubt you where here when that was being discussed the data being collected globally will shape the way we can target therapeutics to patients you seem under the impression that Synairgen are oblivious to this and are running blind into their trials.
If you do enough research and understanding of the share you invested in, there’s no need to worry about. But then again nothing is certain in life.
Gla
hinukami
Posted in: SNG
Posts: 165
Price: 58.50
No Opinion
RE: Strong Buy17 Apr 2020 11:36
I think the efficacy rate of the treatment would be 75%-99.9%rate base on the information and everyone's research from this BB. imo
GLA
I’ve been a holder for over a year now, and I’ve done so much research on interferon. Based from research last year before the phase 2 trial was published I suspected the efficacy of sng treatment was going to be between 75-99% and I was right. And these person(Scinv) comes a long trying to muddy the clear waters. Like what happened last year before phase2 result. I am very confident that the phase3 trial will be successful and Eua will be granted. For the phase3 trial efficacy I might be slightly lower or it could be much higher. My bet is it’s going to be much higher. You can reread my previous post about the efficacy I mentioned last year from my previous post history.
GLA
Ghia, actually the last time we discussed these things this is what you told me
"Ghia
Posted in: SNG
Posts: 2,047
Price: 146.10
No Opinion
RE: Human Behaviour20 Apr 2021 22:52
Scinv let’s talk risk then.
What the biggest risk to SNG? it fails to receive approval for its drug completely.
This risk is independent of Covid, independent of competitors etc.
It relies primarily on the outcome of the Global Pivotal P3 trial.
Now I challenge you to find one scientific publication that indicates IFN will not provide a benefit in this trial situation."
So you it was so clear to you that either ifn a is just as relevant as ifn b if not impaired by antibodies (the majority of even sever cases) and that if these autoantibodies appear very late then they not not in fact be an indication of the benefits of ifna or beta and that it could be irrelevant in those cases. Then why did you not identify those risks only a couple of days ago? Either you are lying about what you understand to intentionally mislead. Or you simply could not identify the above as potential risks. Which one is it?
Scinv
Thanks for your response. I didn't say that all I saw was arrogance in your posts at all.
I too have thought for ages that all patients should be screened on first testing positive for things like genetic mutation causing poor interferon production and auto antibodies to INFs.
We aren't there yet but our trials may encourage progress along that route and better match treatment to individual frailties.
Spinnaker
Another clarification, one of the favtors that we do know plays a role in promoting severe disease is vital load itself. With higher the initial inoculate, there is higher chance to get severe disiease down the line. Viral load can also be increased by increased replication of the virus that is already there, and if ifn is impaired then you do expect more replication and viral load.
Scinv-Its my pleasure. Glad you finally got to learn something. Have a lovely weekend.
Anthony, when antibodies block ifna then ifn b can bind to the receptor. OH. MY. GOD. You have just opened my eyes to the truth
Spinaker
On the first part.i have no obligation to be a saint. This is an abusive board. PERIOD. In fact, way back, I showed a tonne of tolerance this abuse. I don't have to do it in perpetuity, I am not claiming any good person of the year awards either.
Understand this also, speaking with confidence about highly specialised and complex science when in fact not a scientist is in itself arrogant. Again, not claiming any awards, but if all you see is arrogance coming from me then you are blind. At least I am actually a scientist and in drug development in particular.
Second: My view has been this for a long time, screen them after infection (so as early as possible how far before is no longer consistent with anti viral mechanisms no one can tell exactly, but icu stage is by far the least likely) and then treat them, you want to treat everyone in the trials to sort out what's best, even better but CHECK. I jave seen no narrative or document from the company that suggests they are screening for deficiencies in their own trials. So I assume they do not.
Activ is far more clear.
They don't just check before treatment, but throught the primary endpoint monitoring period. This will answer if in some people auto antibodies are present already earlier and if not, when. Maybe there will be a mix of cases, who knows? That's why you have to check. In those cases, the earlier the antibodies are there (ideally as soon as they tested the first time) the more likely it is that they are in fact causative of severe disease (if patient on placebo actually get severe disease). If they only find cases where these showed up towards the end of that monitoring period and the patients became severely ill at the same time or shortly after, then there is a good chance this not causative or a driver but simply a symptom. This information will obviously inform the design of the phase 3, either the inclusion criteria and/or the number of endpoints (if they make separate ones for + or - minus antibody. Note that primary endpoints have MUCH greater value (especially when it comes to marketing authorisation) if they are pre-specified. They are also checking ifnb as well, for the same reasons but probably it is also a tick in the safety checklist (they want to see if the using the drug induces autoantibodies against said drug, which would mean autoantibodies against the natural protein as well). I don't think there is a big risk here, it isn't unheard but seems less likely to happen for ifn b.
Agreed Matt, well done to Joey and Anthony W for putting him on the ropes. He has been massively called out and all his cohorts have showed their true colours too. Shame about 1 or 2 of them.
Scinv - I’ve not discussed neutralising antibodies or autoimmunity in detail here. So how could you possibly know my opinion on that matter?
Keep to the facts please.
Anthony how dare u! Scinv is a pro that knows more than all of us combined. Let the man preach, he obv needs to fill a daily quota..
Scinv-Thank you for sharing those papers but they are not directly relevant to covid but talk to autoimmunity in non respiratory conditions. I take it you haven't seen any of Prof Wilkinsons recent lectures or their biobank work or even why IFN beta 1a was chosen ahead of any of the other IFN type 1. You also don't give any reference to rates of auto antibody to IFN beta as I requested. Yes they share the same receptor as IFN alfa but that makes using IFN beta more important as it can fill the receptor while IFN alpha is being blocked by an auto antibody. I give you points for trying but I'll raise your BSc with a PhD and years of pharma experience.
Let's not forget scinv has referred to many here as "filth" you really think he's here to help anyone????
That's worth a lol lol
Blessed if you noticed, most of the people here don't even grasp the concept of sizing a position, it is either hold or sell. And yes, all of that is very common in message boards, public or private but people still do it anyway. Human nature...
I think this is an interesting thread and do respect Scinv's postings. Having said that they can be difficult to follow and, Scinv, you do sometimes adopt a tone that infers that everybody whodoesn't see the problems as clearly as you is, by definition, a moron. This tone can sometimes alienate other board posters and holders.
I would like to ask you a question having read all the posts. I understand your conclusion that selecting only people with low interferon levels or with autoantibodies to interferons would give greater confidence levels of a statistically relevant outcome for every trial. My query is, do we know whether the P2 at home trial or the P3 international is testing patients for these adverse signs before dosing? It seems to me that if we have this information it would be helpful. However I also understand that even if we have these figures, those numbers may be 10% or less of the total trial numbers and therefore reduce the statistical significance of the results for that specific cohort .
Secondly you seem to think that the Activ-2 trial will not only definitely test for personal defects prior to inclusion but even, on the P3 element select trial participants on this basis. The protocol hasn't been issued for P3 yet so we will have to see but I assume your thinking is that the Activ-2 P2 results will show that recipients with the defects noted will respond more favourably to SNG treatment than others and therefore the trial organisers will try and select those specific defective patients for our treatment based on these criteria. (Ie presence of auto antibodies against INF and /or low INF levels.
Is that correct?
Many thanks
Spinnaker
My comment was an appropriate reply to the comment talking about pricing.
About the rest Ghia. Yeah you've been on the opposite side all this time but now it turns out you understood all this all along. Lol
Clutching at straws now.
https://www.stockopedia.com/blog/can-you-beat-the-market-reading-stock-market-bulletin-boards-144414/
Seek out contrary opinion - especially if it comes from intelligent “trolls”. Experience generally shows that they are more right than wrong.