Member Info for Fruitsnveg

Mact4, if I'm not mistaken it was Kenneth (who had a username very similar, maybe with numbers at end..?. I think it was back in early Spring if you can search that far back? GL.

I don't disagree Kiwi, I was genuinely interested in why Pfizer, I had not clocked the Rebif connection, as JoeyD then pointed out.

Glad that's the answer JoeyD, thank you.

Begs the question: why is Pfizer paying for Aurelien Mary's travel and accommodation?
See conflict of interest.

Any thoughts?

Prof,

I don't know if you've had a chance to read it but tonight in various outlets are the finding of a study:
"A large study involving close to 2 million people in Israel shows the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine slightly raises the risk of heart inflammation, swollen lymph nodes and shingles. But it also finds that Covid-19 infection raises the risk of heart inflammation even more -- plus it raises the risk of blood clots, heart attacks and other deadly events. It's the first large study to compare the risks of vaccination versus infection head to head in the same population during the same time, and it shows the risks of infection far outweigh any risks from the vaccine, the researchers said."

The myocarditis question needed to be addressed, particularly for the male population which it seems to affect more, and I feel studies such as this one leave us better informed. It then becomes a question of which is worse - the risk of catching a disease that raises the risk of blood clots, heart attacks and other deadly events, or a much smaller risk of myocarditis. Only you can evaluate that which risk who choose to take.

Prof,
Forget Covid and look at long-Covid because that's the end point most don't want to arrive at. And there are stats out there if you look:
"The Office for National Statistics recently looked at the NHS records of over 9000 people who had tested positive for Covid to see whether they were showing any symptoms of Covid 5 weeks after they had caught the virus. Using this 5-week period means that they were looking for people who had ‘Long Covid’ rather than people who still had acute Covid. According to this study, 13% of young and primary school age children, 15% of secondary school age children and 17% of young adults showed at least one Long Covid symptom five weeks after they first caught the Covid virus. These are high numbers. About 1 in 11 children currently have asthma, for example, suggesting that children and young people who have caught Covid are more likely to have symptoms of Long Covid than children in the general population are likely to have asthma. Another example is chronic fatigue, which around 2% of children and young people currently experience, a far smaller percentage than this study suggests might get Long Covid symptoms after catching Covid. While we know that quite a high percentage of children and young adults were getting symptoms of Long Covid at 5 weeks, we don’t yet know whether the same percentage will still have these symptoms at 12 weeks or how many will recover then or later. We simply don’t know yet how Long Covid will affect people long-term."

Those stats ( 13% of young and primary school age children, 15% of secondary school age children and 17% of young adults) are not low. They are extremely worrying. Who's to say these younger people and children won't experience life-long chronic conditions as a result of this disease? No one can answer that with any certainty yet, but it's fair warning for us all, believers and non-believers alike. The stats are real.

I've read there are over 90million unvaccinated Americans, it is indeed a big market.

I agree Doc, public health has become so politically divisive in the US.

Long1, there is a lack of evidence that Remdesivir significantly reduces respiratory tract viral loads, yet the FDA approved it and it appears to help some Covid-19 patients. That should provide a level of comfort.

Long1, According to para. 6 of this article (https://www.technologynetworks.com/drug-discovery/news/phase-ii-trial-of-sng001-in-covid-19-patients-set-to-start-332223):
"We (Synairgen) have also shown that treatment with inhaled SNG001 reduced lung viral load and lung pathology in an in vivo swine flu driven model of viral pneumonia. ", so it appears viral load reduction is something they have studied previously.

If you scour the 2013 study done in cooperation with the NIH which it refers to, you may find the data you are looking for.

Arkv, I hadn't considered this, thanks for sharing.

Agree Kiwi. He is a learned man, he's smart. But smart men can be greedy and to say he didn't know is preposterous IMO.

Thanks for clarifying Mact4.

Eric Topal - interesting to note that "In December 2004, (Eric Topal) was a paid consultant for a hedge fund that had profited from betting on the decline in Merck's stock following the company's withdrawal of Vioxx from the market. According to the Times, Topol "had been a vocal critic of Vioxx." At the time, Topol said he was unaware of the fund's position on Merck and was not an investor in the fund. To avoid potential conflicts of interest, he decided to end his financial ties with the fund, "other financial concerns" and medical companies, including the Medicines Company, DeCode Genetics, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, PharmaNet, Creative Clinical Concepts, CardioMEMS and CardioNet."

Putting such history aside, I would think that studying hamsters, although useful, is not indicative of similar results as in human trials, as has been borne out in countless clinical studies. It's a bit like saying aspirin can thin your blood - well, yes it can but you'd probably have to ingest it first. Safe to say that rubbing it on your buttocks may not have the same expected blood-thinning effect... Mode of use actually matters, as I'm sure Mr. Topal is well aware. nasal drops up the nose versus inhalation directly in to the lungs? Hmmm.

I'd like to know if Eric Topal has zero conflict of interest here, history tells me that cannot be guaranteed.

Mact4/ggg21, Isn't that study of alpha nasal drops (as opposed to inhalation via nebuliser, an altogether different route)?

“Most people are going for early or very late treatment,” noted Richard Marsden, Synairgen’s CEO. “We’re kind of in the middle—with very strong effect sizes. We’re not interested in treating everybody in the home environment. In addition to treating breathless patients in the hospital, what we want to do is find the breathless people at home, which is probably only about 10% of the non-hospitalized population.”

I would think that tranche of the outpatient market is still easily attainable.

Naewise,
I would encourage you to look beyond potential competitors for market share. This was published by the BMJ a mere week ago. Frontline professionals and experts warning "Winter pressure: RSV, flu, and covid-19 could push NHS to breaking point".
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1802

And that is despite vaccinations. But beyond this Winter, look beyond Covid and look more at the long-term potential use of this drug. That's where long-term value lives, IMO.

GL.

JamieDimon,

If you rely on Twitter and the "largest sng Twitter personalities account" (eh? who?) as a source of credible information, then I suggest you don't give up the day job at JP Morgan just yet. Who are these experts of whom you speak? What is their agenda?
I'm waiting for a readout of a global P3 trial, as are our other large investors it seems. If a few PIs are frightened off by the Twitterati or the Discordistas or the tealeave reading hordes, I'm afraid I'm at a loss as to what the remedy is, other than letting the data speak for itself. Everything else is just noise IMO.

Slow day at the (AZ/Poly?Insert Other here) office Jamie?
"They are bagholding and NEED the share price to go up."
...And you need it to go down - did I get that right?
Chuckle.

Borsaci06,
On the subject of "long-acting" being highlighted a a USP of their drug, I note that AstraZeneca has used half-life extension technologies to try to develop a product that provides protection against COVID-19 for "up to 12 months". -> Whilst I would consider up to 12 months fairly long acting, real life data is now showing us the AZ vaccine (along with others) efficacy waning after some months to the point of breakthrough infections now rising, so really, until these drugs have been around for some years, it's anyone's guess how long they *actually* last. Future data (a few years out) will be the proof of the pudding.

Well, that may prove to be our magic power Mact4 :-). Talk is talk, data is king.

Agree Shpunken.

"The original statement to disclose the deal said the U.K. would procure the doses if AZD7442 met “robust safety and effectiveness standards.” Trials that will show whether AZD7442 meets those standards are set to read out soon. " That was in May 2021 - source: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/as-data-nears-u-k-rethinks-astrazeneca-covid-19-antibody-deal.

Now that we have independent results (not AZ's PR dept) stating that they failed their P3 study,
I wouldn't say it's a slam dunk home run for AZ just yet.

Pertinent to also point out that the press releases of this am are from AZ, not from regulators or independent bodies. Everyone likes to talk up their own book, as they say. I'd like to see more data.