Member Info for FreeTheCaterham7

Might not tell us much. If the RECOVER trial only recruits people suffering from long covid, rather than people in the acute stage of disease, our data may not be relevant

I’m uncertain if we are an obvious candidate for a long covid trial.

Is there any evidence that SNG001 is any use for people who have recovered from Covid, but who may be suffering from long Covid?

Largely down to the previous FD. What a Muppet.

"And there it is"

There’s what?

This is mildly positive but why on earth are so many people getting so excited about it?

As someone said below, the P-value is (I believe) an indication of the probability that the observed results occurred by chance.
By convention a P-value of 0.05 or less (a 5% chance it was a fluke, or 95% chance that it wasn't) is considered statistically significant. A P-value of 0.07 is considered to have too high a chance of having been achieved by fluke, and is therefore generally considered statistically insignificant.
It's quite a high bar.
As others have said, with the small trial numbers it's very difficult, the way the P-value is calculated, to get to statistical significance. P=0.07 is pretty close.

There is a slightly subtle but quite common misunderstanding of this subject which I may be guilty of, so if I'#m wrong about this I'm very happy to be corrected....

Looks like both ways to me, at the same price
522926+320,827+156,247 = 1,000,000

"You need the numbers for significance and we only had 110 patients.

But interestingly if you combine our sg016 home trial of 60 patients to the Activ2 data and apply the Fisher tests.

You get a significant p-value > 0.0197 a statistically significant figure that won’t be lost on BP or regulators"

I'm too thick to do the statistical analysis myself so I will have to trust Tommy's but this seems to make sense.

Yes I did wonder but it’s sometimes quite hard to distinguish satire from serious on here

How so?

It’s good rather than bad but we already knew the data were good enough to get onto stage III. . I predict the price will end the day within 5% of yesterday’s close.

It may at some stage shoot up to £2.00. But this is not the catalyst for a move like that.

"So there is a trial they know we are a part of"

Maybe there is…but this job ad doesn’t lead to that conclusion.
I’m a bit cautious of "joining the dots" and following the job adverts after getting absolutely carried out a few months ago.

What TD2 said

"What they've done is laden the average taxpayer with vast amounts more debt and directly given the money to the richest in society."

??This

"The full analysis, including several patient-reported outcome measures, which is ongoing, will be presented in October at IDWeek 2022"
Indeed. But I very much doubt they would have extracted the boring bits, rather than the exciting bits, for the RNS. I’d expect the full analysis to add some background, but no new headlines.

I thought we’d established that the reference that looked as though it was about Marsden speaking at this was in fact a reference to him having attended last year?

" not hedging at the higher price a shambles "

This

The plonkers are the people who get anunbalanced view of this stock's prospects by binning opinions they don't want to hear

"It pretty much infects nearly everyone it comes in contact with , regardless of vaccine status."

That's not a conclusion you can draw from the data you quote

I believe that as a consequence of Mifid II most brokers now charge for research and therefore keep a very tight grip on who can see it. It’s much harder to get hold of (decent) reports these days