Member Info for Brand

God forbid they target anyone not on this board w a bit of marketing hey?

"the market for covid isn't as big or strong '

Just the tens of thousands of people dying every week, meh.

It's worth keeping in mind that in the UK at least, the main threshold for hospital admission w covid is a blood oxygen level below 92%

Would certainly be good PR for NIH and ACTIV to release those results at the ATS.

Is that great big beautiful SNG Rocket??? Been in the garage for repair work but methinks it's ready to fly once again.

The list is of authors of the poster, not presenters

Absolutely cracking RNS - 70% Vs placebo in an exactly defined diagnosis (O2 saturation/breaths pm)

The last line is a beautiful come get me'

"SNG001 is not approved for use anywhere in the world"

Game on. I think the fact they can clearly define breathlessness via O2 saturation seems very relevant.

"If you were releasing a new car at a car show of top flight dignitaries why would you show the press pictures 3 days before the event?"

This!

The company have quite literally told the market exactly when they are going to release the update FFS.

Just had a thought - BG could own 4.9% of Synairgen right now and we would have no idea. Mad concept given the influence he has...

Apologies, the link was broken:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nyV99GY52I4

He certainly does Burstead, yet he still seems keen no?

@ Tommy - this was the one wasn't it? Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So there is no way he doesn't know about SNG.

https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/10476/presentation/10405

If anyone is keen to gain a bit of insight as to what may be included in the poster presentation at the ATS, would suggest researching the named authors on this embargoed abstract (the ones that don't work for SNG)

https://www.economist.com/billgatespod?utm_campaign=a.coronavirus-special-edition&utm_medium=email.internal-newsletter.np&utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_term=5/7/2022&utm_id=1158899

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nyV99GY52I

Prize for immunology winner Paul Bastard

https://twitter.com/MARYau_MCU_PH/status/1523349865912098818?t=9QkmumJCS-mPcDyeTfrGaA&s=19

I think Dr Mary's response to Aim detectives question is actually quite striking. 2 years and hundreds if not thousands of scientists studying INFb Vs Covid and the evidence overwhelmingly is in favour.

Recall seeing this one a few weeks back and registering under 'more of the same re INFb Vs Covid'. Didn't clock the funding at the time tho, which would appear to be incredibly relevant after what we've seen these last weeks.

Excellent find Titania thank you for sharing.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10763-2

Quite a bit in here, but it's basically a big flashing advertisement for SNG001

The money shot:

"Given the steady evolution of new SARS-CoV-2 variants through 2021 and continued significant resistance to vaccination among a sizable minority of people with access to vaccines, the pandemic has continued to result in high levels of morbidity and mortality in many areas of the world, fueling an ongoing need for therapeutics to treat COVID-19. Our results demonstrating marked reduction in SARS-CoV-2 replication in AEC cultures treated with recombinant IFNß1 or IFN?2 provides further mechanistic evidence to support the possible use of inhaled interferon as a possible treatment option if initiated early enough during COVID-19. A recent randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial of inhaled nebulized interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection demonstrated that patients who received SNG001 early in their disease course had greater odds of improvement and recovered more rapidly from SARS-CoV-2 infection than patients who received placebo, providing a strong rationale for further trials of this agent61."

Thank you Tommy

As every day is a school day, maybe some one can correct me/fill in the gaps

Odds ratio 0.5592 - 55.9% less chance of progression to serve disease or death w SNG001 vs Placebo (&SOC)

95 % CI: 0.3335 to 0.9376 - confidence interval? No idea on this one tbh

z statistic 2.204 - I know Z scores are in relation to deviation, however can't claim to know what this score means

Significance level P = 0.0275 - there is a 2.75% chance the results are a 'fluke' IE a 97.25 chance these results correctly show the drugs performance Vs placebo - I understand a P under 5% is genuinely considered statistically significant.

I am quite happy to be told I'm wrong, I am just keen to learn tbh