Member Info for Fruitsnveg

I can either put this down to bad news (cant find any so ruling that out); an orchestrated raid (possibly, let the beggars work harder for my money I say!) or an orchestrated manoeuvre on the part of a negotiating party with whom the company may not be playing ball (who knows, and if it is, sod them).
The sell started at 10.52, gapped then it restarted, gapped, restarted etc etc, so IMO, intentional and planned. What narratives were pushed here today? So much to consider and plenty of time to do it in.
DYOR but I ain't selling a dime. GLA.

BeC ... we have a strategy?

I should think the majority of investors won't be losing any sleep over Molnup, for all the reasons stated previously when it was discussed and debated. Even RM said he welcomed the addition of promising looking data of early-stage Molnu. treatment to the toolkit (in the last webinar to investors). I should think it will have it's place in the Covid armoury if it isn't stopped on safety grounds. Worth watching again for those unfamiliar with how different the 2 drugs are and how they are not competing entities, rather complementary in the fight against Covid.

Zwarktops,
I can only guess that you hold SNG's prospects in very high regard! You seem to travel the boards telling people their shares are tanking, going to tank, or have tanked.
Tank you for your insights and GL with that MO, it doesn't have much effect here.

I have low expectations of the MHRA, in light of their abject failure to ensure patient safety in the PIP scandal amongst others, and subsequent game playing vis-a-vis legal redress. They are not fit for purpose and require a major overhaul. I fully expected them to jump when the Government said jump. UK Gov made a promise to deliver 2 approved treatments by end year and they cannot lose face. 100% political IMO.

no pain, no gain SilverbackMerch.

Agree, very weird. 88, 33, 34, 36, 33, 33, 33, 55.... no idea.

Thanks for sharing that Matterhorn. Our inclusion in that new sub-study means more valuable long-term clinical data. This is great news for SNG001. The more data the better.

Agree Matterhorn, I think it would be a major coup for the company, a deal maker even. Fingers crossed.

IMO they set and have their own agenda (they invest in the stocks they cover, long, short, who knows) and produce generally misleading 'analysis' peppered with nuggets of truth to sucker the masses. If they had a print version I would use it to clean the unde*****s of my mud-spattered wellies. Useful for something just not making investment decisions with IMO.
Note: I don't know the companies you mention that they are covering in their analysis and am not denigrating them, they may well be good/great investments, I just don't trust the MF.

Sorry Matterhorn, I replied just as you gave an answer on the enrolment dates - thank you.

Matml I don't know, it would seem a most likely point to scale up, a bit more belt and braces? When was the 300 enrolment number likely to have been passed?

Understood Andyb4. Although I think 20p in such a scenario is on the very very harshest end, more likely -30-50%, for an as yet undetermined *temporary* period, IMO.
Just to mention, there could be a 'change of control' clause in any contract the company may have signed with the the US government for access to ACTIV trials. I have no idea what type of agreements are in place, or if any, so I am thinking aloud, but if such a thing existed it may have implications in a TO scenario. Something an interested party will no doubt have looked /will look into. An acquirer may not get a free ride, or access even. I don't know - just food for thought.

AndyB4, you raise an interesting point when you say "The ACTIV2 trial is only important now if SPRINTER messes up. But in that case everyone will pull their money out anyhow." I say interesting, because I think you are right, some PI's and maybe an II or 2 will plan to walk away if as you say Sprinter "messes up". However, I do also think ACTIV2P3 is very, very important - the general US respiratory market has un-met needs which will outlast Covid. I do believe some big smart money is on Synairgen's as a longer -term play here. When you read through the US documentation coming out, such as the link I gave earlier, it is evident how costly, rigorous and painstaking a process this has been for all involved. Will the US stop Synairgen's participation in ACTIV if Sprinter yields sub results? I very much doubt it. Could the ACTIV2P3 trial produce different results to Sprinter - yes anything is possible IMO, different trial, different set-up, population, protocol, criteria, oversight, etc etc. There are many reasons that potentially efficacious drugs can fail to demonstrate, for example, to show efficacy, including a flawed study design, an inappropriate statistical endpoint, or having an underpowered clinical trial. I'm not saying any of this applies to our trials but just giving examples. The point being that some things can be remedied and subsequently produce different results. As a few holders here have previously stated, personally I would use the opportunity of a lower SP to invest further (if Sprinter failed and assuming no other red light than sub results and depending on the nitty gritty of data we get). For me the significance of a successful A2P3 is underrated and worth sticking with, I see it as the final piece of the pie with cream on top. But I also get that this is a strategy that is not attractive to everyone. It's been a long haul after all. It will suit some to cut and run. I would just say there is life after Sprinter, don't rule out what might lie ahead and look at all options when the time comes.

It could be Alhambra (I'm sorry without listening to interview you mean I can't say - but I would view governments as our main customers for Covid (for stockpiling/future preparedness) so they are an important part of our playing field. Or, he could have could have been referring to the importance of 'PPP' (public private partnership), where working alongside governments is crucial in coming up with a public health response rapidly. If you read the final passages of the document I linked to below, it mentions PPP, and shows how mammoth a task getting these trials off the ground quickly was. PPP involved "federal government (in the US), including scientists, clinicians, administrators, and regulators, industry, and other funding entities".
If you point me to the exact video I'd listen again...

Just thought it valuable to park here for future reference, primarily because there's a a bit of a false narrative IMO that crops up regularly on the BB that calls into question Synairgen's ability to manufacture and scale up rapidly if successful. No doubt designed to sow doubt and oft used by some to shake confidence. This sets it out in B&W:
Source:https://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/Fulltext/2021/11000/Accelerating_Coronavirus_Disease_2019_Therapeutic.13.aspx
This document lists the criteria used for selecting ACTIV candidates. You will note how rigorous the selection process was. If you download a PDF copy you will see page 1968 table, amongst other headings, refers to minimal criteria for 'Developability and Scalability". To enter ACTIV-2, candidates had to evidence the following:
1. manufacture large quantities (quantities not stated, but as ACTIV is run in the context of supplying the US, I would assume *large enough*)
2. ability to scale rapidly (< 1 year)
3. stability (> 2 months)

What to conclude from this? Having progressed already through ACTIV-2, Synairgen would have already evidenced the above to the satisfaction of the US authorities prior to starting the trial. This should put to bed any questions over the company's ability to develop and scale rapidly per US criteria, if successful. Timeframes will have been discussed so that should also assuage those that find themselves worrying unduly about future 'perceived delays'. If the US gave Synairgen the 'GO' to enter ACTIV-2 based on these criteria, they were accepting of whatever scale up plans and timeframes the company presented at the outset of ACTIV trials.

It's not a post related to any points here being discussed currently, but worth noting IMO.

Good find Bigjohnnywins.

Excuse the garbled ending there, pasted too many times. But I think you get the jist.
Prof. Wilko's AZ sponsored COPD studies seem very much aligned to how SNG001 works, at least to my medically untrained eye...

Interesting wetdream, and there might be just some truth in that BigJohnnyWins... See here:
https://www.uhs.nhs.uk/ClinicalResearchinSouthampton/Research/Facilities/NIHR-Southampton-Biomedical-Research-Centre/News-and-updates/Articles/Southampton-scientists-renew-strategic-collaboration-with-AstraZeneca.aspx
I saw this article year ago - about Prof. Wilkonson's funding from /collab. with AZ, a new phase of a programme so I would guess is still in progress? So, if AZ wanted out of the COPD market they would surely not be funding his studies (which is basically this: "In vitro modeling of IFN-ß dynamics highlights the potential for intermittent prophylactic doses of exogenous IFN-ß to modulate viral infection. This provides important insights to aid the fu
Souonds a bit like what SNG001ture design of clinical trials of IFN-ß in asthma and COPD."
That sounds like something SNG001 does....

I hate to say it but I think 'a decade' is being highly optomistic. I would double that figure. given that we've achieved what exactly, in 2 years? A massivly successful vaccination programme in a couple of rich Western countries (the benefits of which dwindle by every passing day as immunity wanes). Heading back to square one rapidly is how I see it. Through a lack of coordinated effort and short-sightedness, we are hothousing all manner of mutations around the world. Meanwhile, we are governmed by a cabal of incometent self-serving muppets. Maybe Boris could crack one of his fart jokes, like he did at the COP26. That might yield results.