Member Info for Brysoa

Prof SPD, THAT IS.

In your dreams!

What a narrow spread. 28.50 vs 28.64. Meaning?

So, Aether, in your judgement (?) Synairgen has a potentialworth of a mere £201m? Utterly bonkers!

When you think about the dodgy therapeutics (safety concerns, interactions, early-use constraints, dubious efficacy) from big pharma that the FDA have nodded through, the unassailable safety record and now consolidating statistically significant evidence on efficacy in a clinically relevant category of patients must count for something with the regulators.

“ Would an RNS on the morning of the conference presentation be the grown-up equivalent of finishing your science homework on the bus to school?”

Er…No!

Titania, your find clarifies the status of the presentation on the 16th and puts in context that:
This is THE p2,p3 clinical trials symposium session of the huge and highly influential ATS conference.
The session covers the entire spectrum of pulmonary disease.
Four presentations have been selected from a “fairly large list” of invited submissions.
One is on Covid - from Synairgen - who open the batting in the 90 minute session.

These are the facts. One can also speculate that the selections will have been based on some idea of the likely content of the presentations. No point in a damp squib taking up a scarce programme slot.

Never seen a CEO present at a scientific meeting.

There is nothing magical about p (probability)values. They simply represent the likelihood that a finding could have occurred by chance. Convention has it that a p value of 0.05 (probability of 1 in 20) or less signifies a level where the result is likely to be “real”. But this absolute runs the danger of junking as valueless real findings that are near-misses in p value terms. So, for example, consider a study resulting in a p value of 0.051. This finding could occur only once in 19.6 repetitions of the study. Does this render the finding valueless in absolute terms because it does not hit the 1 in 20 gold standard? Clearly not. It is a finding that should be considered in the global context of the study in question.

It’s market sensitive information emerging in a presentation at a scientific conference over the weekend. So RNS is mandatory … no desperation involved.

Haseltine lays out the case for Covid-19 and its descendant variants being with us for decades. Our Dr Whitty is of the same persuasion. Severe illness and mortality in the vulnerable and long-Covid remain significant clinical problems as does the ongoing burden on health care systems world-wide. The need for better therapeutics, preferably agnostic to variant changes, and the case for preparedness (stockpiling, etc) are apparent.

SNG001 has missed waves 1-7 of the pandemic and has suffered the impact of changes in the nature of the pandemic and therapeutic advances on its key P3 study. But these are short-term setbacks in a long-term game.

The balance sheet suggests that we have some time to make further progress before the bailiffs come knocking. Provided we get some encouraging deep-dive sub- analysis findings and/or feedback from A2P2, there is every case to be positive about the future of SNG001 - and of Synairgen as a discrete entity.

We have a heavily invested institutional investor who, I believe, understands all of the above and whose best interests lie in the success of Synairgen rather than in a fire-sale buyout.

On this basis I will be holding and, if I wasn’t pretty-well at or beyond my comfort level, would be buying to reduce my average right now.

For “wife”, read “husband”. Doesn’t affect the sense or significance, though.

I meant to write if i was a Polar holder I think I would be going apes**t right now!

If I was a Polar holder I thin’ 8 would be going ape***t right now!

So we have vaccine escape in novel variants, ditto immunity from previous infection, mabs evasion and ongoing virus mutation. It seems that there are no currently approved antiviral therapeutics that can offer much going forward.

Omicron variants, 1 at least, seem relatively benign but there is no biological law that says that future variants will be similarly intrinsically pathogenic. Couple that with the emerging ineffectiveness of current vaccines and the lag time for these to be “tweaked” to render them effective against emerging variants, be manufactured at scale, distributed and administered and you have a recipe for difficult times ahead.

SNG001 has still to prove itself but the answer is now days away. All the indications are that the company is bullish about results being positive. This view is supported by at least 2 institutional investors who have invested heavily. One seems to be continuing to buy.

In the context of what lies ahead of us, what the world is in urgent need of an effective therapeutic for hospitalised patients. This being so, and with the prospect of what SNG may be about to reveal, the hysterical negativity displayed by a tiny minority here is dismaying at best and, frankly, disgusting to behold.

We are now in a one horse race. The horse could still fail to reach the finishing line but that is looking less likely with every day that passes and every piece of information and evidence that emerges.

And it has to be acknowledged that the passing of information between Reddit and here is a 2-way street. At least 2 excellent posts from Wilco and from Trinityman found their way to Reddit today and were very well received.

We are all in this together, as they say!

There are 2 Levels of access to the Reddit Synairgen site, as I understand it.

(1) anyone can access the r/Synairgen subreddit by just googling r/Synairgen and get access to a library of seminal papers and discussion pieces that have been accumulated there over the past 20 months or so. This was set up by a small group of LSE activists back in the day. There are currently around 950 members of this site but I don’t think there is a limit on the membership.

(2) by contrast, the Synergen Reddit chat group is a closed shop, not because its members (around 450) want it that way but because of the rules of Reddit. A lot of the current members (most in fact) signed up when it was established. In any case, the only way new members can get access is when spaces appear in the membership as existing members drop out. This is a pretty rare occurrence, however.

It is sometimes characterised here as an elitist group. Not so. There are some really active sleuths and members with all kinds of professional skills and insights but it’s just a bunch of investors with a common interest in SNG. One thing it doesn’t have any of is the kind of disruptors that can characterise this forum at times and this makes it a pleasure to access the site.

Over the piece, most of the finds of any significance there find their way here fairly quickly except where there is a particular sensitivity - usually around the source or sources of the material.

Hope this helps.

I also struggled to buy a modest number of shares on HL this afternoon. A conventional market following the Adam Smith principles should not have behaved in this way: falling price, difficulty buying. AIM certainly is a bear pit. The sooner SNG gets onto a more principled platform the better.

Marik, not Maria …. auto-correct!!

Maria, I wrote to the corresponding author on the paper, Professor Friedemann Weber, asking why they restricted the second part of the study to IFN alpha and whether they had considered looking at beta as well. Here is his reply:

“Thank you for your email. Good point. We currently use IFN alpha for our assays but have done exts with beta in the past (not with CoV). I dont expect much of a difference, and if any, that IFN-beta is more powerful. But who knows!”