Member Info for Fruitsnveg

Andybe4,
Risk is correlated to return. If you want low risk you accept a low return. You buy a goverment bond. If you want a high return you accept the risk, both mitigated and unmitigated, success, failures, delays, warts and all. You seem to believe it's a stock worth owning, but it's not worth the wait. Impatience is a thief.

Andy,
"literally nothing good has happened in a whole year since the fund raise."
It's obvious from your incessant whinging that you did little to no research - the disappointment you now feel (if it's real) is unjustified and unrealistic. You expected to plough money into a company without considering the realties of how a small no-name biotech would navigate the inevitable massive hurdles in a world-first raging pandemic? More fool you. You expected a 10 bagger on what you 'assumed' would be pay day and damn it if this company doesn't deliver when you expect it to? More fool you. Many of us have been under water here for longer than you've been on this BB. We are prepared to wait, not just for an ROI, but for a therapeutic that may one day save our nearest and dearest. That likelihood is now higher than it's ever been. We don't invest on blind faith, we base our decisions on data. And so far I can't see a gaping hole in that data, if you do feel free to speak up now. Most of us know what we bought into and we knew the very real risks involved (including delays of weeks). My advice to you is to wise up, do a bit more research before you throw your money at something, and if it doesn't meet your exacting time standard or you lack the patience to weather the waves, refrain from investing altogether. You'll be eternally disappointed.

When did Polygon start buying Kevin?

I'm thinking of calling it ACDC after the band. Legends.
Anyone with me?

23 million (approx), not 2million. That was a typo. 23 million equates to 1 in 13 Americans, so it's a lot.

I suspect the US regulators understand the potential broader uses of SNG001 outside of Covid, hence their willingness to make the protocol work at optimum level of efficiency, for want of a better term, to drive out not just Covid treatment data, but any other evidence that could help the 2million or so Americans who have asthma, and will still have asthma after this Pandemic is over, and will still be facing other virus-induced exacerbations in the future. Not all drugs on ACTIV will have that edge, therefore the protocol revision was wise.

Could broader clinical utility refer to the broader respiratory illnesses that SNG001 might have an effect on? I noticed that the Lead Investigator on the Sprinter US funding doc link that was posted yesterday (the one mentioning the 230+k$ cost), is listed as Monica Kraft. She is also the Deputy Director of A2DRC (short for 'Asthma/Airways Disease Research Centre'). That is the 'unit' that is undertaking the Sprinter trial (at least I assume so as it's on their funding sheet). That unit describe themselves in the following way "Our researchers are experts in the life sciences, clinical advancements, drug development and alternative therapies for the prevention and treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cystic fibrosis."

I mean it's not unusual that she or her department would be involved in atrial such as Sprinter, but I'm wondering if the "broader clinical utility" mentioned in the protocol is of special interest to their asthma, COPD and CF research. It would make sense, right?

Thank JoeyD Peelweight :-)

Thank you to those who raised and discussed this today - it's added clarity. I hadn't considered the implications yesterday.

It gets the drug under the noses of a lot of useful well-connected industry and trial people too. An added benefit when you look at the cost.

I mean the ones that replaced the ones that don't work. Oh wait....

Investowin, you can get the boxed LF tests sent direct to your home from NHS online. Available to everyone and free. You might find it easier than taking the kids to test sites and queuing. They send out the 'easier to use' ones now(nose only and not as vicious as the as previous ones, better for the kids). 30 min result. Just a thought in case you weren't aware.....

Investowin, you can get the boxed LF tests sent direct to your home from NHS online. Available to everyone and free. You might find it easier than taking the kids to test sites and queuing. They send out the 'easier to use' ones now(nose only and not as vicious as the as previous ones, better for the kids). 30 min result. Just a thought in case you weren't aware.....

Rumandpoker, I agree with you about releasing and publishing a draft. It's not done that way. To get a release drafted there would have to be a minimum review, which if you consider the interested parties names in the document, would have been a lot of very busy time-poor people. I can't see them officially reviewing a protocol that was just done 'on the off-chance Synairgen end up progressing'. That version wouldn't have been released, as you say it would be still parked on someone's hard drive. No doubt, it would be better to have absolute confirmation of that, but that's how I see it.

It looks very much like we are moving to P3?
Q: Is the protocol agreed with input /discussion with the company, i.e. Synairgen, or is it done independently from them?

Elsol, I assumed it is for NCT04732949 (P3 - Sprinter), University of Arizona is a listed site on that trial. Pmjh can confirm?

If time is money Oakleaf, like Revlon, we must be worth it.

Thanks for unearthing that pmjh.

The start point is in the hospital, agree with you Docdaneeka. Was that your point?

I don't know about trialling CMWW2014.
Ref: Japan, Synairgen was granted a Japanese patent for the drug in 2011. If we get the green light, a future customer base perhaps?

Agree with you Peelweight. However, there was and is still merit in the home trialling. If you take the data out of it, P2 and A2P2 have been very valuable in the sense that they have tested the therapeutic strategy Synairgen seem to be persuing (hospital use) end-to-end. Prove that patients can take instruction remotely, prove it works for clinicians, prove ease of use outside of a hospital, etc. All very complementary information to have at hand for regulators when you may be expected to send patients home to continue use after discharge.