Member Info for Fruitsnveg

Clearly you're not one of them. Read your own post.

Don't bother answering the OP, waste of typing juice.

This golden nugget from his posting history "...I thought I’d take a punt when some twxt said yep it’s a 20 bag easy lol..." . One trick pony, too right Wayno.

Which year? lol. Just kidding, as you all know (or should by now).

Have a sunny relaxing weekend all.

BLOK now own more % shares in Argo Blockchain than Mara.
BLOK now own more % shares in Argo Blockchain than Riot.
That speaks volumes.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/large-nih-clinical-trial-will-test-polyclonal-antibody-therapeutic-covid-19

It's mainly about SAB-185, another drug candidate, but mentions SNG001 amongst the triallists and gives an overview if Activ-2, progression into Activ-3 etc.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/interferons-global-market-report-2021-103500400.html

Just a 4 min read, published today. It does mention SNG001 - yay!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-science-idUSKBN29G2LT

Apologies if already posted, it probably has been as was published in January. Nonetheless a little mention of Synairgen and the ACE2 study etc for those who have missed it.

That's excellent Matml, postive news, thanks for posting.

Love that toon Doc.

I agree Doc, I think the conversation sometimes veers towards 'why can't we make this really cheap' but in reality there are so many factors to grapple with. The big pharmas, to be fair to them, have at least worked at keeping vaccines at cost price - not all but most- which some (me included) would say is the most ethical and humane thing to do. Were it to transpire that one of those same big pharmas partnered with Synairgen throuh licening agreements, then it might, just might, be fair to hope that they would also supply therapeuics like SNG001 at cost price too, at least for a period. Having done it once I don't seee why they couldn't do it some more. Pie in the sky maybe, but I like to think big and bold and hope ethics wins above profits. we would still get our licencing fee and global populations could be the beneficiaries.... who knows....

Doc, Spin,

What is being igored in pricing conversations I see here on the BB, is an industry used methodology which considers vastly morethan just ingredients and manufacturing costs. As this pricing methodology article summises "Even if a company only develops one drug, the median spending is still a hefty $351 million. Note that companies with extremely low R&D spending per drug mostly get there in part by convincing a partner, usually a large pharmaceutical company, to carry the cost."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/the-cost-of-inventing-a-new-drug-98-companies-ranked/?sh=109a93312f08

Based on the above, assigning a cost to SNG001 based on ingredient + nebuliser + manufacturing estimate, is way to simplistic IMO. The numbers are staggering. This is a very, very costly business and those cosst ust be rcouped somehow in the drug pricing structure. I am hoping, personally, that Synairgen do persue licencing deals with larger pharma partners as RM has mentioned previously, because then the cost burden shifts and the elephant in the room (price) shrinks dramatically.

Sterland, one thing we do not know for sure, or at all, is the price of the treatment. Lots of guesses and workings and reference to conversations many months ago, but nothing concrete and nothing that has been communicated by the company as a 'definitive' pricing structure.

However, here is what we absolutley do know - the other front-running candidates are not cheap either - there are some fairly eye-popping figures here (e.g. $8,000): https://medcitynews.com/2020/09/combo-study-of-gilead-antiviral-lilly-anti-inflammatory-drug-positive-in-covid-19-but-raises-pricing-jitters/

Then you have to factor in the combiining of drugs into a treatment '****tail', again adding to overall treatment and expertise expense. On top of that, ease of administering, transporting, storage and longeavity all play a part in overall pricing. And certainly in those respects, we have ticked quite a few cost saving boxes already compared to some treatments.

So I think comparatively, SNG001 may actually look fair value for money to governments in the end.

Rumbled... great catch BruceJ. It's a bit like dancing the Flamingo.

Bigjohnny, my money is on Dido, based on her previous world-beating inability to deliver she should qualify in a hare's breath. We're in good hands.

Thank you Seaboy for your very diligent following of the candidates, it s very helpful to read where each are and their respective characteristics etc.

Anyone complaining about how long it’s taking to produce an antiviral drug for Covid, needs to read this article below. (Note - since it was published, Merck’s drug, a co-candidate on our Active-2 trial failed to meet its end points. We are still progressing through Activ-2). Understanding the process and hurdles should be part of every investors research here. It may calm a few nerves to see how far we’ve actually come and why things are time-consuming:

https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/09/scientists-work-toward-an-elusive-dream-a-simple-pill-to-treat-covid-19/

Thanks for clarification Oak.

DPC, sorry I get what you're saying now. When I said it has been recently updated what I meant is since that tracker was first published in the NYT, ie earlier in 2020. I've been reading the NYT (and the tracker since they first started publishing it) and I'm sure SYnairgen was not on their original list which had some dozen or less (?) candidates listed. Apologies if the mistake was mine on exactly when, but great news as the NYT has a good readership.

And under the para where Synairgen mentioned, it states ‘updated March 1st’. That wasn’t March 2020 because half those drugs weren’t in trial then. It’s this year.

DPC1825, not the BBC article, I was referring to the NYT tracker that Syngold posted link to. It was originally a pretty short list, not very comprehensive compared to others, which is why I gave up checking it regularly.