Member Info for Fruitsnveg

Doc.Daneeka, I know you like to defend your buddy but there's no getting away from the fact that he's a a self-confessed shorter of this stock, by his own admission, multiple times. And no, I didn't sign up for a party where *the number of shares you held* was a pre-requisite for a party invite. It seemed the kind of info I should be sending to Citadel's Head of Shorting Dept on a postcard instead.

OJ17, your statement excludes the possibility that there may be insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition of no progress by the company is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is only knowable in the future, when the company makes an announcement. Appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof. But we have had updates, a recent interview and expectations set by the Chairman in his statement in the Annual report, as well as feedback from the AGM y posters here. At the end of the day, Mr. Costas impatience cannot be solved by philosophical debate.

Head of Party Planning Committee, lol Gunto.

I didn't know they had parties at Citadel, maybe they should hire Laxe?

How do you know they have no options Costas? This is the place for evidence - do share if you have any? You cannot make wild assumptions just because RM hasn't wiped your nervous brow and sung you a sweet lullaby each night, that there are no songs to sign, no plans afoot, no wheels in motion, no inkwells being filled...

Question: Would a potential partner want , or indeed *need*, to be involved in the NIH discussions around Strive before such a collab. is agreed or announced? What are the legal, data and commercial ramifications for a potentially (and hypothetical) interested party, of participating in Strive with Synairgen (be it via JV, TO, Collab or other form of partnership) over the timeframe involved? Even you can surely understand why there may be a need for continued silence if such (commercially sensitive) options are being explored. We do not know enough yet to say what is going on, but I am confident that the company will inform us in due course and in the meantime the continued hiring to 2 key posts gives me hope that things are bubbling away. I certainly don't see lack of news since RM's interview a mere fortnight ago?, as problematic. I know these things take time if they are to be done correctly.

Worth remembering too the current hiring of a Director of QA GMP GDP by Synairgen and the now closed role of Senior Medical Writer (closed because I assume they are or have decided on a candidate). Those hires are being made with purpose. We are not announced on Strive, but may be in the future (something we can take as either the will of the company (yes, they do have a choice), or the will of the NIH), but are still hiring into key positions. Hmmm.

Good post Elsol, food for thought.

Interesting finding here ref LC - what Covid does to our brain and may help explain LC: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/scientists-made-mini-brains-infected-093000490.html

"This changes at Christmas. If they haven't chosen us by then - they won't ever choose us and we'll be looking for something else."

It's a good job then that the company told us months ago that they were looking at Multiple options already and all eggs are not in the one Strive basket. A prudent strategy indeed.

NIH might not stop them, but a potential partner could. Lot's of legal (e.g. change of control clauses) and IP considerations here when passing control to a US entity to oversee trialling and own data. There's a lot we don't know so you shouldn't assume everything is black and white.

Exactly my point. The BOD of Synairgen will be aware that a GOP-led Administration is no friend of science, truth or public health. The BOD must feel some caution about handing clinical trialling control over until the mid-terms are finished. The last thing we would want is threat to funding blocking SNG001's development path and the kind of stalling we've already seen with A2 results release.

"The big downside is we have zero control of virtually every element including the key one, time to completion with zero guarantee the winds of change in the halls of government won’t sweep you away because of some internal decisions on funding, or god knows what"

I agree that is a MAJOR risk and one I believe Simon Shaw mentioned in their latest report. It can't be swept under the carpet. If the Republicons gain control (likely) they may decimate every funding channel in place and re-route $$s to their own pet projects. Covid-deniers most and proven self-serving yahoos, all. If Trump makes a run for the WH (long shot but stranger $hit has happened), you can kiss no changes at the top of all federal organisations. He will replace every one of them with his own people - delays will happen and control will be lost. I'm beginning to see the US route as problematic, at least until the mid-terms are over and Trump is indicted on 658 charges. If the Republicons don't get control and Trump ends up where he should, then this risk diminishes. I doubt RM & Co will want to be at the mercy of a shifting, chaotic and politically-charged timeline, again. Make no mistake, STRIVE could falter under a Republicon administration. They loath Biden and everything he has put achieved and they want Covid "done". Funding would not be secure. Something to bear in mind.

Strive starting is good news in the longer term and the news today I welcome - US Gov commitment and a clear signal that Covid is far from going or gone. There's lot we don't know though so can't assume that Synairgen hasn't been approached by NIH already but made the decision to hold off until other discussions with other parties have been closed out (being on a US trial may contractually straight-jacket them for a period in relation to IP and JVs etc and that they may want to avoid if there are equal or better opportunities on the table?). None of us actually know. I therefore wouldn't read too much into them not being first. Hopefully we will have news from the company on that front before too long.

No doom-mongering. Just press-reported official facts and figures.

I don't tend to heed numbers so much, it's the trend that you should be observing. Especially as testing is still so low, we can assume this is under-reported. But that may change and show a much truer picture in the months ahead.

You'll find this information more current than the link you posted Doc.Dan ::https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19/latestinsights

"Deaths involving COVID-19 continued to rise in the UK
1 November 2022
There were 735 deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) registered in the UK in the week ending 21 October 2022, up from 625 in the previous week.
The total number of deaths registered in the UK in the week ending 21 October 2022 was 13,463, which was 15.7% above the five-year average (1,822 excess deaths). Deaths involving COVID-19 accounted for 5.5% of all UK deaths in the latest week, which is an increase from 4.7% in the previous week."

People should be prudent. There's a particularly nasty variant circulating where we are, I spoke to 2 people this morning who tested + on 24th Oct and said they got knocked sideways by it, both were much sicker than any form of flu or previous bout of Covid they've had. Bizarrely no children in the households caught it, but it "absolutely floored" the otherwise healthy adults in their 40's, none with any underlying conditions. I don't think this can be Omicrom and is probably a newer variant, but who knows... Stay safe.

Ignore last line, it was an orphan comment.
Also I meant 'likely' not 'lightly', typo.

Thanks HSD. Maybe Polygon don't want to take that much risk. Buying and running a niche Biotech, or any other non-HF operation, is not in their DNA. Hedge funds don't typically make control investments. If you look at their their website, it doesn't show any company acquisitions, so it's not their strategy and there's no reason to believe that they would change that just for Synairgen. Hedge funds use their deep pool of contacts and industry expertise to find a good exit for themselves. Let's say a BP wanted Synairgen, the normal way is to get the biggest shareholder to agree by having that conversation with them, otherwise it's more difficult and hostile. And who want's that? Polygon, by virtue of how they are building a stake here, seem to me at least to be signalling a willingness to dialogue if the price and offer terms are right. I could be wrong, but I'm gong on what I observe here. IMO they either have an interested partner in the wings, or are ready to entertain one (or more?). In a recent 2022 podcast interview, Reade Griffith (Polygon) explained that their investments are typically long, i.e. 5-10 years. I found that very surprising, but comforting. There is no guarantee that's the case with SNG, but it's looking increasingly lightly to not be a short-term investment for them... otherwise why keep building a stake. He also said they are not under the same pressure as some HF's to pay back investors, which was an interesting remark to make. I think they are very astute. You should not rely on my interpretation of Reade Griffith's strategy here, but I offer it up as it's the one that I find most compelling, under current circumstances. As always, DYOR.
One last thing that makes me

To your first point Doc.Daneeka, abandoned deals, redundancies and uncertainty affect every sector, not just pharma. I would argue that those BPs involved in the likes of RSV (so GSK, Pfizer, Janssen, Moderna) are less affected by such incertitude, and being the cash-rich, positively positioned and forward-looking entities that they are, I would not see those risks as being worrying.

To your second point, Winter may feel like the best time to trial Flu and Covid drugs. But Covid has not followed a linear Winter schedule, instead attacking in waves of increasing frequency throughout the year across continents. Likewise, in a study in the US, cases of RSV were found to tail off to very low levels in 2020 throughout the Northern Hemisphere winter, but then peaked the following summer. That was not expected. Covid variants are still here so an unpredictable RSV season makes it hard to say if Winter (21st December to March) will actually be the optimal trialling windo? I'm not sure we can say that with any great certainty. This pandemic has proved surprising at every turn.

As for a potential partner winding their way down the valley of the Kings towards the shaft of our dusty Southampton pyramid, perhaps as they pass Hatshepsut's temple they will be reminded that an attempt to erase her from history failed. She then turned out to be one of the most prolific builders in ancient Egyptian History. I'm sure there is a lesson there somewhere, history is a great teacher :-).

There is no better time to be in the infectious disease field than now when we are searching for a way out of a global pandemic. Big pharma have dropped the ball - as an industry they should be better prepared for future pandemics and they need assets to fill up those pipelines. SNG001 is a such an asset. There is big money in acquiring those assets and a P3 trial is NOT a pre-requisite, despite when some on here will have you believe. Recent ID deals back this up:
- GSK acquired Affinivax for $2.1. billion up-front with trailing payments. It was only a Phase 2 drug. Deal struck in May 2022.
- Pfizer acquired Reviral (for RSV) for +$500 million in April 2022. This was another Phase 2 drug.
The lesson here is that Pharma are willing to pay good money for good products that they like and they are willing to take the risk on to complete P3 development themselves. Worth noting that over 90% of all biotech deals in 2022 this year were Infectious disease related. Like it or not that is where BP have been pivoting to and we are ideally primed to take advantage of that.

Other non-dilutive options are to apply for grants to fund development in the US, EU and UK. This is strategy that Poolbeg Pharma, for example are successfully implementing.

There is also Private Equity.

I state the above options not to claim that any will happen (always DYOR), but to illustrate that there are multiple paths for SNG001, not just one. We have cash to end 2023 and are spending prudently. Being told that if we don't end up on a paid for clinical trial within the next 6 weeks e are dead in the water is grossly misleading IMV. We have time, we have money, and we have a promising asset to address an unmet clinical need. All to play for IMHO.

We have prudent spending and a cash runway to late 2023. A paid for clinical trial is but one option.