Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
"The only value I apply to this share price works as follows - positive trial data and she explodes out the blocks. On its upwards trajectory I decide when I will sell some. Simples" And that seems to summarise quite well the quality of the analysis of a lot of people on this board. Anyway, why I am wasting so much time arguing with people who just don't want to hear or can't understand? Complete waste of time. Originally I was hoping to get some intelligent answers, but obviously am not getting any. I'm not saying there aren't any but no-one here seems able or willing to provide any.
No actually I just queried why finncap hadn't changed their estimates of potential sales after the vaccines came out. Subsequently I decided that even though they had been wrong not to amend the estimates it was still worth investing.
Genuinely I have no idea why those posts were removed. You think I am a paid deramper, carry on imagining if you want. I have been totally open that I sold the shares and why and that I hope to get back in, I can't really be bothered to go over the old points I made as no-one here (well there was one exception) seems to understand the correct mathematical approach to value shares of this nature where this is a strong risk element. I suggest you check how analysts calculate a fair value for mining stocks or indeed pharma stocks - they work out what profits would be if successful and then try to estimate a probability and multiply the two together. It's the only logical way. But you can carry on denigrating me if you think only you understand.
You are repeating the same question as earlier to which I gave a lengthy reply based on the protocol. But more specifically, when you say "maybe that’s why Synairgen have chosen to not say a single word on P2 efficacy where others have " this cannot be the case as Synairgen have clearly said they have not received any data of the trial. So it can't be that they are deliberately not commenting on exactly how effective it was given they don't know this themselves. All they (and we) know is (as I explained at length) that the DSMB recommended that it proceed, which must mean there is sufficient efficacy data in the phase 2 trial itself for it to proceed.
Stu485, you ask:
"Looking at the BRii news release for progression from Active P2 to P3, there is content regarding efficacy.Why do you think in stark contrast Synairgen makes no reference to efficacy ?
Is it possible in the Synairgen case, consideration was made on trial safety and supported by the "growing evidence" referenced in the Synairgen RNS ,of likely efficacy from other studies trials but not specifically Active ?"
I think the answer can be found in Synairgen's RNS, which was much briefer than BRII's release. They said ".... the external data safety monitoring board (DSMB) of the ACTIV-2 study has recommended that SNG001 advance into Phase 3 ...." In the protocol of Activ-2 recently published it's clear that there is a Trial Oversight Commitee (TOC) who make the decisions, based on recommendations from the data safety monitoring board (DSMB). In the "regimen" of the "schema" (page 15) which sets out the general overview of the study, it says "Investigational agents will be included in phase III evaluation based on agent entry criteria for phase III as outlined in the protocol (or by TOC approval based on data available outside of ACTIV-2)." Thus there are two options for progression to phase 3, the first is " based on agent entry criteria for phase III as outlined in the protocol ". The second possibility is that the TOC approves it "based on data available outside of ACTIV-2". Under the second scenario, it seems that it is the TOC who decides without reference to the DSMB, as the DSMB are only there to assess the data from the Activ-2 trial itself.
This is further clarified In the main body of the protocol on page 29-30 which says "The DSMB will review unblinded data and make recommendations to NIAID (as trial sponsor) and to the TOC, indicating whether graduation criteria have been
met (see below for criteria). The recommendation for an agent to enter phase III evaluation will be made by the TOC in discussion with the company...." and then "The TOC may recommend an agent move directly into phase III, without evaluation in phase II in ACTIV-2, if there is sufficient safety and efficacy data supporting phase III evaluation available from outside of the trial. These agents will not undergo graduation analyses."
Since Synairgen stated in their RNS that it is the DSMB who recommended progression to phase 3, it seems clear that there was safety and efficacy seen in the Activ-2 trial itself, as then explained under "Criteria for Graduation of an Agent from Phase II to Phase III" - "Graduation of an investigational agent from phase II to phase III evaluation will be based on there being a desired level of evidence of an effect of an investigational agent versus placebo on one or more virologic and clinical outcome measures, as well as safety...."
The only caveat is that the efficacy required for progression is EITHER a lower level of the virus detected in samples taken, OR an improvement in symptoms, we cannot be sure wh
81lucky precisely, such a shame he can't move on from the subject and think about other things. I think he is probably now working on getting our posts removed, so don't be surprised if they disappear soon.
Booth, nearly 600 negative posts, amazing! And given you say you are a shareholder but are really worried about the company it's amazingly selfless of you to want to persuade others to sell and not worry that it might affect the share price. It's even more amazing that you don't sell yourself. Maybe the reason for that is that you don't want to knock down the share price by selling, thus causing others to have to sell for a lower price.
What a fine upstanding member of society.
But seriously now, whatever self-interested reasons he has for his posts, there is a psychological obsession here as well which indicates that he has a serious problem, which is very sad.
smalltrader, you say "They would first check efficacy and if that is met then they would verify safety record" - please explain how you know that is actually the order they would do it? Not saying you're wrong, but how do you know?
He contradicted himself, and I think the only way to resolve that is to say that he wasn't speaking so precisely. So when he said at the beginning that it's moving forward, he just meant that it hasn't yet been rejected (as opposed to the first therapy which failed). So that tallies with him later saying that he doesn't know if it's moving into phase 3. And when he said they're waiting for safety data, that may too have been slightly inaccurate and it might not just be safety data they are waiting for but also efficacy data. Unfortunately this seems realistic as he mis-spoke once previously about a month or two ago, so he clearly doesn't know how to be precise when he talks. Not a deramp, you can all disagree with me if you like, form your own opinions.
Yes on the clinicaltrials you reference site it does say Phase III, my question is that it says the study started on Jan 12, so it definitely can't be talking about the Phase III of the Activ-2 trial as at best that will only be starting around now, also the page says the last update was on August 31 at which point Phase III had definitely not begun? The answer is to be found at the top of the page where it says that it is referring to the Sprinter trial i.e. not the Activ -2 trial. I hope this information doesn't cause the price to go back down but that's the truth of the matter.
Does anyone know if it's possible to access the analysts q&a - either a recording or a transcript? I wonder if something was said to them that helped cause the latest fall. In the absence of that it seems like a good buying opportunity, shame I have too many already to allow myself to buy more. The mere delay of a couple of months for test results is hardly a reason for the price to go down by 15% or so - or am I missing something?
Looking at the transcript, he said "hopefully" 3 times. FIrst: "once hopefully, the dust does settle on COVID-19, then we feel....". Second: "we feel that having generated hopefully, positive data from our SPRINTER clinical trial and ACTIV-2 trial clinical trial..." Third: "and we're waiting for a review of the data, which hopefully will allow us to progress from the early part of this trial..."
The first instance is not even relevant to the context of being hopeful that the drug works. So effectively he said it twice, which seems both nothing to worry about and actually perfectly reasonable. So I can't see what people are getting worked up about.
Just 6 more absurd posts to go and it will be a nice round 500 negative posts in a few months from booth. All in the name of helping us understand the "facts" from a "long-term shareholder" who is of course completely disinterested. Such selflessness, such altruism - just amazing.
You are extrapolating from currently weekly US hospitalisations of 87,000 a week. But just a couple of months ago on 4th July that number was just 14,580, a sixth of the present level. So that shows how quickly and how much the numbers can fluctuate. When boosters have been rolled out along with the new delta-specific vaccines, things may get very much under control. Yes, unfortunately covid probably won't be wiped out but the numbers could be much much lower in just a few months (when the product could be arriving on the market). So maybe it will be just 5000 a week of which 2000 will be given SNG, or 100k yearly. Admittedly this could still produce a yearly profit of £100m (assuming £1000 profit per person), which is not too bad. But I am just saying that to work based on today's rate of hospitalisations doesn't seem scientific.
Lots more bashing from liambooth along with just some slight tactical retreating on the level of bashing and repeating his old convoluted arguments for the umpteenth time in order to make him seem more respectable - all seemingly to distract attention from the fact that he is still failing to provide answers to my simple questions, which in the context of his constant bashing, certainly deserve a proper answer. To remind you my questions are:
Liambooth, I think what we all would really like to understand is - 1) if you are a shareholder as you keep claiming, and yet you have all these well-thought-out reasons for thinking the company probably won't be successful, why don't you sell? And 2) given that you are not selling, why do you keep posting negative arguments, aren't you worried that you might affect the share price which would be against your interests?
Simple and clear questions, do you have simple and clear answers? Or should we draw our own conclusions about your motivations?