The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
Notwithstanding the possible issues surrounding sniv and the likely benefit of being ignored may have on him personally, please don't reply to sniv. It should be clear that the users who discuss in this detail have moved on to other sng forums. Imo the share price isn't driven by in depth scientific knowledge unless it clearly indicates imminent failure or success of the trials. To date nothing sniv has posted indicates success or failure and is as much relevance to the share price as life on another planet.
Schrow once again you pretend not to understand and see everything as a 0/1. No one said anything about 0. It is all about reaching the endpoints with statistical significance.
Thank you, WiltsInvestor. That is kind-of my opinion, too but there is simply too much argumentative reasoning to plough through on a daily basis. State your opinion or reasoning, reply to any challenges in a constructive way then leave it to other readers to form their own opinion. As it stands, simply too much unnecessary aggression.
Which one is more other account apart from "scinv" which you all reported en masse?
More precisely the argument is (and I've been making that argument for months, before phase 3 started) that going with a subset is much higher confidence than going for. In fact it is not even one way or another, all they had to do is check and then get the approval for whatever population works batter. This is what activ is planning most likely (they clearly check).
But even if they could not have afforded to do a bigger trial (nevessary if you want to have multiple conditions) one goes for the high certainty first to get the approval and then additional indications (subset of patients) are much easier to get approval for if relevant with an already approved drug. This is a go to strategy for small biotechs and I have been saying that for ages only to get attack by the people who fail to see their arrogance
The problem with scinv is IT is a banned multiple account lost count of all the accounts and is clearly pushing a desperate agenda. It’s not normal behaviour of a PI to spend day night weekends posting and setting up so many accounts
I dip in and out of this board.
I am no scientist; however I read the research posted here and on the Reddit board and try to form a view. I find the views of more informed posters useful be they neutral, positive or negative.
For what it’s worth I think Scinv is making a valid argument. SNG isn’t a golden bullet; it’s a treatment that needs to be targeted at a subset of the population. The research is increasing around interferon and the role that Synairgen can hopefully play.
I seem to recall Professor Sir Stephen Holgate talking about precision medicine.
I don’t agree with the “aggression” shown in some responses and think it’s good to have balanced views and discussions.
I’m heavily invested here and believe we have a role to play albeit perhaps a slightly smaller role that I anticipated six to nine months ago.
None of it is straightforward as the people here like to pretend
And that is why I am talking about low vs high confidence.
Scinv - If you look at the below sentence where it says poorly induced AND once infection was established. This statement seems to suggest low IFN levels are part of the bigger problem being discussed in the study, hence the use of the word 'and'.
(I'm assuming so.) So with that in mind i.e. low induced IFN, would an IFN based treatment like SNG001 not still be effective to SOME extend to prevent further infection i.e. replication due to higher levels of IFN and a higher likelihood of downstream success even though there are all these other issues as discussed? I guess it's fair to say there's not a TOTAL breakdown of downstream functions.
Secondly, and I don't have access to the full article, but it states IFN type 1 and does not specify in the abridged version which type 1 IFN they're discussing. Would these findings affect all type 1 IFNs or potentially only alpha or beta for example?
'Type I IFNs and IFN-stimulated genes (ISGs) were poorly induced during SARS-CoV-2 infection and once infection was established, cells were highly resistant to ectopic induction of IFNs and ISGs.'
No Doc. You do not get to pretend that you understand sciemce and automatically conclude BUY BUY BUY and when details are given then attack and refer to other forum so that the usual suspects here continue to pretend to understand scince and comvimce naive people to BUY BUY BUY without challenge. I can do whatever I want just like you can.
Scinv - I think Professor Tom Wilkinson is on it, no need to worry. I think he is more than capable of arranging trials in a manner most appropriate for our treatment. Unless you think he is out of his depth? I think he knows a lot more about interferon than any of us here on this board put together.
Sure sure. As you jave seen for the millionth time, it doesn't matter how I write. The responses are always the same.
Scinv, once again an arrogant comeback. Are you incapable of being the least bit civil. I know absolutely nothing about science. I didn't know that was a prerequisite of owning shares in any company. I don't know anything about Lithium mining, but I am invested there. I might not be a good investor according to you, but if I have a bet for example on a football match I don't want the other team to win, Know what I mean ?
Barry..... yes definitely on the spectrum, which is why some have kindly tried to be patient with him.
So if all goes well (availability, company deciding again stick to their own, other issues) the phase 3 part of activ 2 could include the autoantibody status in the inclusion criteria or split the primary outcomes into +/- autoantibodies
All of them except the activ 2 (because there they actually check). So hopefully, there won't be any more issues with availability for the rest of the activ trial.
Adn today we see there can be issues also with the wiring, and that is in fact not surprising, since clearly yes ifn seems important esp in covid, but only in a subset of sever patients we see the autoantibodies for example.
Jesus what a boring thread.
Happy St Georges Day folks.
Gold
Mike that fact that you are asking this question means you do not understand anything about science or investments.
Here we go again, trials without selecting patients based on scientific evidence is low confidence, trials with a good rationale in selecting patients are higher confidence.
The autoantibodies story and their role in other respiratory viruses has been known for years, it is their role in covid that was pointed out at least since last October.
And I'm telling that
1. I explained it AGAIN before your latest comment
2. I had explained it last night but the comment was reported away
3. I had explained in part befor to Ghia (before this paper) and copy/pasted it again last night, that too was reported away
4. I have been very detailed and to the point on the vast majority of occasions since last September but every time someone does not agree all the true nature of this board and the vast majority of its "contributors" comes out, no.matter what the detail or tone of my post is.
But you already know that.
It's Skinvs way or the highway everyone. It's a shame that this individual has to be aggressive all the time.
Given all you know, which you have told us on here, do you think that this product will get approval to be used against Covid19. A straight yes or no will do.
Skinv, I'm not asking this question to mock you in any way, I'm just trying to understand you a bit more, are you autistic?
Cut the BS Ghia, I explained it in more details last night and all the comments were reported into oblivion. Let's see if the latest one stays