Member Info for Fruitsnveg

It would be phenomenal if a few here could support the petition to get Evushield funded.
A lot of people won't be able to afford this. It's just a couple of clicks to sign the petition here: https://bloodcancer.org.uk/news/new-campaign-launches-for-the-forgotten-500000-families/

"that statement makes it look like Synairgen agree with Joe Biden, (and disagree with everyone else in the medical profession".

I think that was the point of this pseudo "ID Week Coverage" article Doc.Dan. The article was published some 7+ hours before Phil Monk stood up to present at ID Week. It's not ID Week "coverage" at all, it's aged references to past RNSs cobbled together with a lot of hyphens thrown-in-on-top. Dear me. I remain convinced that official and trustworthy news direct from the company should be with us soon !

12p. Lol. Top prize for the saddest run of wildly incorrect predictions goes to Ab4.

It sounds like the NIAID were asleep at the wheel. If anything is to be learned from this, one would hope it's that no official in that or any related organisation would ever be "unaware of the specific experiments". A total cop out, or complete ineptness IMO.

You sound more and more like a bitter Pascal Soriot with each passing day Doc.Daneeka. Tell us it ain’t so… :-)

https://vimeo.com/762066500

IDWeek 2022 is here!

Could the reason be because of the statement AZ spokesperson made (to Endpoints News) on October 3, 2022? They (AZ) said that in vitro data conducted by an FDA lab “showed that Evusheld is unlikely to be active against BA.4.6." And we know BA.4.6 is spreading in various countries including the USA and UK. Maybe that scared UK Gov who obviously don't want to be stockpiling a drug that no longer cuts the mustard?

Evushield is designed as a prophylactic against Covid. SNG on the other hand is an antiviral treatment, so would agree, very much apples and pears. Comparison yields little to the debate as to why AZ have failed to secure a commercial contract with UK Gov. It must be a cause of much frustration for Sorriot. Nonetheless, AZ's profit margins are not a concern for a SNG investor like me. My hope is that we succeed with our differing offer of a non-prophylactic broad-spectrum antiviral.

The Evshield question seems to be more complex tand is not to do with cost IMO. A dose of Evusheld costs an estimated £800. It's not cheap, but then the cost of not protecting the immunocompromised is arguably much, much higher. I can find no reference to cost being a barrier in any updates or documentation, unless I've missed something which you could furnish here for our information?

Here's the reason the government gave a week or so ago and although I disagree with their approach, it is what they have conveyed...:

"Notwithstanding the questions on efficacy and duration of effect, it is highly unlikely that supply could be made available to the UK for all these patients in autumn or winter 2022, particularly as doubling the dose to 600mg is recommended for use against Omicron. Moreover, it is also unlikely to be suitable or needed for this size of cohort. Evidence shows that different patient groups with immunosuppression have different levels of vaccine response. Identifying the correct cohorts (for example those with unpredictable, low or no antibody response) would be essential, even if questions on effectiveness were sufficiently answered."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/decision-on-evusheld-as-a-coronavirus-covid-19-treatment-letter-to-patient-groups/decision-on-evusheld-as-a-covid-19-treatment

No mention of cost, but certainly other factors seem to have gone against it.

Here it is, the most recent tweet:

" #Media and #Analysts":

On Friday 21 Oct Dr @PhillMonk will be presenting the full analysis of 60- and 90-day #LongCOVID data from our Phase 3 SPRINTER trial in hospitalised at #COVID19 patients at @IDWeek2022.
Attending? Set up a meeting with us: info@synairgen.com"

Fighting talk on LC today from the WHO :
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/12/long-covid-who-tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus

“This plan should encompass: providing immediate access to antivirals to patients at high risk of serious disease, investing in research and sharing new tools and knowledge as they’re identified to prevent, detect and treat patients more effectively."

“Early in the pandemic, it was important for overwhelmed health systems to focus all of their life saving efforts on Covid-19 patients presenting with acute infection,” he said. “However, it is critical for governments to invest long-term in their health system and workers and make a plan now for dealing with long Covid."

Hoping our LC data puts us front and centre in that plan.

Still waiting for your 10p re-entry Lax?

lol.

Worth noting that the 'cost issue' seems to be raised with clockwork-like frequency here (every 3 months?) generally by the same posters. You would think if they found the cost prohibitive, discussed as it has been regularly since no less than 2020, they would have already disinvested themselves many times over, but bizarrely, they are sill here? Really, it's very weird behaviour...

I can't see the issue here. The US government pay $2,100 for a course of sotrovimab - the available antibody treatment shown to work against the now dominant Omicron variant of the virus. Comparative to SNG001, in that it's for hospitalised patients. You would need to add the MAB IV equipment and staff cost on to Sotrovimab cost, which actually makes SNG001 look pretty good value for money IMHO. And easier to administer too with no complicated IV facilities required.

As an aside, Alkin, the US costs per bed are far higher than the figure you quoted, you will find the relevant info on the HHS website.

TT,
You will be heartened to know that an endpoint of Janssen's universal UNIVERSAL trial in progress now in Southampton, which is in collaboration with Synairgen, is to establish the Health care Cost estimate for each patient. That in turn will inform the treatment cost of drugs like SNG001.
It is worth noting too that in the UK, the use of QALYs in the NHS so limited Britons’ access to new cancer therapies that Parliament ignored the QALY methodology entirely and created a “Cancer Drugs Fund” to pay for new cancer drugs regardless of their QALY ratings. One wonders if they will take the same approach with Covid therapeutics? Either way, I doubt Polygon would still be here if they felt the drug was priced too high compared to peer treatments, so for me, there is that level of comfort on pricing too...I actually think it's a bit of a red herring tbh.

It's dated 2020 I think, so old, nonethless, interesting tech.

Thanks qqqqqqq. I wasn't aware but that makes sense. NHS online sill closed to over 50's but I will investigate the walk-in possibilities.

As far as I can see, NHS boosters not available to over 50's yet, only to the over 65's.

Any reason why Tues or Wednesday next week, in particular, Sharedealer?

"It means nothing in the short or even medium term for SNG ".

I don't agree. The aim of Janssen sponsored study is to "develop a prospective longitudinal clinical database of respiratory viral infections in hospitalised patients to inform the development of potential antivirals to treat severe viral lung infections caused by seasonal viruses and emerging viral threats". Any company that is in the business of developing potential antiviral drugs will benefit from such data. Which means Synairgen. Collaboration = access. It It is implausible that Synairgen will not allow this data to inform further development /commercialisation paths for SNG001. That is why it's called a "collaboration" in the RNS, not an act of altruism.

The question you really should be asking is what else could this lead to with Janssen? Will they walk away from data that looks supportive of SNG001's development case? Will they just forget about it when the study is over? Maybe. Maybe not.