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:
You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.
Your email and password must only be used by you. If a post is made under your account, it will be considered that it was posted by yourself.
Your account nickname must not be the same, or contain, listed company names or board members' names.
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
You will not;
discuss illegal or criminal activities.
post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge.
post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.
post any personal details (e.g. email address or phone number).
post live price or level 2 updates.
publish content that is not your original work, or infringes the copyright or other rights of any third party.
post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.
post links to, or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication.
post any affiliate or referral links, or post anything asking for a referral.
post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic.
re-post premium share chat posts on regular share chat.
restrict or inhibit any other user from using the boards.
impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives.
post or transmit any content that contains software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of this website or any computer software or equipment.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
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 and Verified Members
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
I think the approach being taken by the company is right, release information when the data supports your comments. If things go pear shape you will see director sales, currently they are all holding and lets face it, its not like coronavirus is going anywhere...
We need a progress update from the company now too many unknowns it's one thing being careful what you release but to release nothing is unfair to share holders. I am at a loss now with so called warp speed with so many hospitals enlisted how difficult can it be to administer a life saving treatment.
Thanks Matterhorn. I am not worried about anything in this article. It is titled to suggest there is a problem with finding treatments for early COVID19. It then goes on to exclude many lines of possible treatment. The only one it doesn’t fully exclude is SNG001. The thrust of its headline, which it hammers home in the text is that it doesn’t help the 90% of people that are ok with paracetamol. I don’t find that much of a criticism but it fits with the headline.
"Vaccinated people may be able to spread the coronavirus and should resume wearing masks under certain circumstances, the nation’s top public health official said Tuesday in a gloomy acknowledgment that the mutated delta variant has reversed the promising trendlines of spring."
Can confirm it is a new interview. Only the words in quotations are his actual words. All of it strikes me as odd to be honest, I get that he’d want to contribute to a piece like this but what he says still strikes me as different to the HT language and not particularly welcome. Probs just me though ;)
Doc - I get what you mean. Having to treat 10% to prevent only 2% - 3% from being hospitalised. On the face of it, it does sound like an expensive exercise, but only if the treatment is expensive.
The answer to this question is value based and therefore depends on what you are trying to achieve which would include considerations such as, but not limited to: 1) Prevent undue pressure on the health service. 2) Cost - Non hospitalisation is far less expensive than hospitalisation. 3) Potential for reduction in long covid - we’re awaiting results. 4) Fewer hospitalisations enable Health Services to focus on non-covid patients. 5) Prevention of death
The ‘cost’ of such considerations may or may not exceed the cost of treating the 7% - 8% ‘who don’t seem to require it.’ It’s definitely a multi faceted equation and one for the Health Authorities to figure out. At present I’d say they would opt for treating the 10% especially in the US. Could be different in the UK and EU, but with the NHS waiting list in the millions you want to keep people out of hospital at all cost.
Can’t see anything new here, after HT results we understood that the data wasn’t big enough and that we needed a fire to put out.. also some of the sentences don’t sound like RM at all.. not sure what to make of that
Doc at the end of the day the same applies to all drugs be it via outpatient or hospitalised. The key fact here is that our drug is designed for a subgroup of patients liable to progress to severe symptoms and whether at the point of admission to hospital you treat them or post admission you treat and then send the home to continue treatment. Whether that number is 10%, 3 or 2% it’s still huge on a global scale for our drug do you not think?
the admissions rate is irrelevant. Or at least it's relevant to the other strand of our research but not to this discussion. We're talking about whether even with the P3 Activ-2 protocol redesigned to include breathlessness it would still be a hugely expensive and largely futile operation - and will remain so until an extra and more refined targeting is possible (which we know is the subject of a lot of research at the moment)
About 10% of people develop marked or severe breathlessness and only about 2% - 3% are hospitalised. (Note it’s not 2% - 3% of the 10%.) The latter was confirmed by the phase III trial for BRii where they had just under 3% hospitalised if I remember correctly. Their trial covered a few thousand patients.
I’d say he’s saying the same thing in this interview - maybe not the best choice of words by either RM or the journalist.
Sorry if you read the whole quote it's clear he's talking about the "few" who will become seriously ill from the 10% who are our target cohort. So it's not 10% - it's a much smaller percentage than that.
"About 10 percent of people will develop concerning breathlessness and some may end up in the hospital. But it’s so relatively few that you would need to treat a huge number of people just to stop one or two from landing in the hospital, Marsden says.
Just to add 900 patients a day are being admitted and those are potentially our patients. Whether they could be identified prior to admission or treated for a day and then sent home to continue our treatment at home remains to be seen, but our drug gives the medical profession these options
Isn’t he saying exactly what he said on the interview post HT 90% of people don’t end up in hospital and giving them any drug is really pointless other than lemsip and rest. He seems to be saying breathlessness is the key and many don’t exhibit until possibly after a week and those 10% are our patients. Not reading anything into this that he hasn’t said before?
Is nobody else interested that RM is reported as saying this ? I don't recognise the quotes from previous interviews. ? Can anyone dig into the origins a bit deeper or confirm if these are old quotes ? I'm going to email the journo to ask if it's a new interview. It does seem to contradict the entirety of what we're doing in the US but it seems really unlikely RM would even say such things -but the quotation marks are not accurate enough for my likling so ot's difficult to be cetian what's a direct quote and what's paraphrasing by the journo.
"About 10 percent of people will develop concerning breathlessness and some may end up in the hospital. But it’s so relatively few that you would need to treat a huge number of people just to stop one or two from landing in the hospital, Marsden says. “That’s the quirk of this virus,” he says.
the piece continues "For viruses such as the original SARS or the MERS coronaviruses, which have much higher mortality rates, it makes sense to treat everyone who gets sick right away. But with SARS-CoV-2, the severe breathlessness that sends people to the hospital usually doesn’t show up until the second week of infection. That may be how long it takes for the virus to move down into the lungs and start causing damage there that interferon beta may be able to counter, Marsden hypothesizes (SN: 7/22/2021). So treating people at home earlier might not help anyway. "
Great find Matt - slightly concerned that it seems to argue against breathlessness as an indicator for early at-home treatment, which was the big plus from our HT and what we’re all hoping will be added to the protocol for Activ-2 P3.
‘About 10 percent of people will develop concerning breathlessness and some may end up in the hospital. But it’s so relatively few that you would need to treat a huge number of people just to stop one or two from landing in the hospital, Marsden says. “That’s the quirk of this virus,” he says.
Not certain how much of that paragraph is RM speaking or the journo
" enhancing the host's innate immune response by administering type I IFN could be an effective treatment against COVID-19. Here, we highlight the importance of innate immune response and the role of IFN ß monotherapy against COVID-19. " 2021 Jul 23 Suresh Kumar Kali, Peter Dröge, Priyatharshini Murugan https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34311016/
“It’s not worth giving our drug to everybody. Wait until they develop lower respiratory tract illness and then give it to them,” when it may do more good, Marsden says. “It’s a huge ask of a drug that it be so safe and so efficacious that you can give it to everybody.”