Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video 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.
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.
Funny you should menion the USA, the vaccinated and the Delta variant...:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/27/cdc-masks-guidance-indoors/
"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."
Reuters
Public Health England said on Friday that of a total of 3,692 people hospitalized in Britain with the Delta variant, 22.8% were fully vaccinated.
Imagine the costs in the USA if almost a quarter of patients fully vaccinated still end up hospitalised when also considering only 50% of the population are fully vaccinated
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?
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.
Doc that not the way I read it.
He’s saying it’s pointless to treat 100% to find 10% in my view?
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?
Yes. Effective but limited. Or targeted/focused.
I don't think you can realistically ask for more.
Didn't someone say the share would be valued at about £5 per billion pounds of sales?
Prices from £7 to £20 per thrown about.
This company is like taking a picnic on Dartmoor with a beautiful partner and making love in fields of gold
Have to be concise when speaking to the press...
The company is doing brilliant. Of course all the red tape is frustrating.
Synairgen presents the most interesting of stories.
My target is £17 per share and boy us long term investers have earned it.
" 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/
Brilliant!
“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.”
Nice! Use limited but effective
Same message. No hint of change
Thanks Matterhorn, always good information!
Great read, thanks Matterhorn.
A discussion about SNG001 with specific reference to its target audience and a few comments from RM. It’s discussed in the section called ‘Helping too few’ - the header references the home trial.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-why-early-treatment-drugs/amp