Member Info for Ghia

Tommy - Allow me to play devils advocate for 5mins since you’ve stumble on a point that troubles me.

Poly - invested to make money as we all did.

Activ - Saw enough in the drug to warrant a spot on the trial but prioritised others (perhaps drug availability?)

AZN - Binned us off, now I’m well versed in the reasonings for AZN’s decision except for the fact that given the dramatic turn of events why did AZN not re-evaluate their position ref SNG. Surely it was a no brainier for them to stump up the cash to run the trials during the peak of the pandemic instead SNG where forced to go it alone and raise through the markets.

There is only one favourable explanation for this and this is that SNG rebuffed any AZN advance this could have turned out to be a grave miscalculation.

The perceived lack of interest from AZN is a worry I’d love to know the inside line on this from both companies perspectives.

Excellent point!

Manifesto - That is one of your funnier knee jerks.

So you are suggestion blood absorption rates that vary person to person is a more effective method of delivering IFN to vital organs?

Nebulisation = controlled dosage at source
Infusion = controlled dosage to blood

Half life of IFN means nebulisation requires less drug product to target respiratory system ergo safer with less side effects and a direct delivery method.

If you intend to treat organs outside of the respiratory system nebulisation unlikely to be the go to delivery method. As absorption rates via a persons lungs are likely to vary too much person to person.

There will however be absorption into the blood so depending on how much of this arrives at the required sites there may be a side benefit.

Stop at source has to be best route SNG early and hopefully none of the follow on issue develop in the first place.

And clearing remnants of the virus from areas of the body other than the respiratory system may be where other delivery methods come into play.

Nebulisation to target at source in the respiratory system. But infusion for vital organs etc.

What is for certain is when you start talking about targeting areas outside the respiratory system and outside of an active infection more trials are certainly required to establish dosing requirements, regimes and side effects.

Manifesto - is it not obvious that if you have impaired lung function and stimulate your immune response via a vaccine or drug product. That if you have a respiratory virus you would feel better?

That’s the whole point of the vaccine and SNG.

If you feel bad because lung damage caused by LC has impaired their function but you currently have no respiratory virus you will gain no benefit immediately from a vaccine or SNG.

Agree or disagree?

Where things get interesting is if there is no obvious lung damage but still LC symptoms suggesting a link to other areas of the body such as heart or brain parallels are being drawn with chronic fatigue symptoms. I think it’s a long shot to suggest SNG would have an effect with people who have already developed these symptoms but it could be an effective preventative in the first place.

Stop at source is the modus operandi of the nebulised delivery method.

Manifesto - Your opening comment about my post was.

“Ghia

I think it is much too early to suggest SNG001 cannot help existing sufferers”

Now this is my post

“The drug won’t cure long covid so will not be of benefit initially to current LC sufferers.

However the long term effect of LC might make those sufferer’s more susceptible to all types of respiratory infections which would increase the market size of the broad spectrum use case for SNG.”

I didn’t say it cannot help them I clearly stated how I thought it would help them.

It’s getting silly now.

Manifesto - Please re-read my post before jumping down my throat.

There is a clear distinction between reversing the damage caused by LC and managing the long term health of someone suffering with LC.

The SNG COPD use case is to aid the sufferer to fight off respiratory infections when they get them, which they may struggle to fight off unsupported.

I strongly suspect the same will be true for long covid.

Our drug will never reverse the impact of COPD or of LC.

The long covid story will be an interesting one to follow.

If the use of SNG prevents development of Long Covid that’s a great outcome.

The drug won’t cure long covid so will not be of benefit initially to current LC sufferers.

However the long term effect of LC might make those sufferer’s more susceptible to all types of respiratory infections which would increase the market size of the broad spectrum use case for SNG.

Tommy - It all depends on the remit of the platform trial.

For example inhaled IFN a2b is currently being trialled in numerous studies which are likely to provide interesting results but unlikely to penetrate the US and European markets.

The activ platform was looking like an excellent vehicle and sprinter had FDA backing.

Which is why I understand STRIVE is at the forefront of peoples minds since it is a vehicle that looks like it will be influential.

As for Dunks point indeed it has been impressive what SNG have achieved for the size of company they are. I have always been complementary of this. Other similar structured biotech have collapsed attempting to follow the same path. Ultimately though success is judged by results and in that same period billions of dollars was spent on far less capable drugs developed by more influential companies. This is the uphill battle SNG have always faced and will continue too.

Manifesto it’s impressive for me considering I’ve only managed a mere 2500 since 2012 and you’ve racked up 7300 since 2018.

Care to join in the debate and talk about the topics being raised or are you just going to continue to poke and jibe?

This is an invitation to discuss and debate.

Tommy - You may not be but others are and have.

Question do you see admission on a PT a value addition or risk reduction.

I view it as a risk reduction and the delivery of the data the value addition assuming it’s positive.

Can you see that taking that view the value is realised at a much later stage?

If you view the admission as a value adding event then it’s fair to assume a market correction.

Hence the differing of opinion. Any gains realised from the initial news are likely to be reduced during the first half of the trial. Again just my opinion.

On the topic of long covid this indeed could be a value addition. What remains to be understood on this topic is how extensive is the data and what doors can it open.

Positive outlook would be enough to push for some form of approval.

Our prior track record suggests to me enough to warrant further research, and this is backed up by the noises from the company. Whilst Holgate was excited and visibly enthusiastic about long covid he was also very clear on the commercialisation point.

If LC data set was going to be expansive enough to push for regulatory approval the commercialisation answer would perhaps have been more vague.

And for clarity I’m not suggesting you are claiming LC data will lead to approval. Just making clear that my opinion is that this is unlikely instead it is likely to warrant more investigation.

Good to see you back Henderz

Tommy - You’ve probably articulated where the difference of opinion is arising.

How much value are we each attributing to the participation on a platform trial and I don’t think we will ever agree on that and will have to see what the market makes of it when the time arises.

Dunk - Really?? For what purpose? My holding here is likely in the upper quartile for a pi.

The share price is trading a range so if I want to buy more it’s easy to pick off more on the low days.

There is little movement so this is far from an attractive trading prospect intraday, intra week.

I’d be more concerned about the people attempting to draw the crowd and pump the price perhaps they are hoping to swing trade but need a bit more volatility to make that viable.

Manifesto - Again you are seeing what you want to see from the post. A common problem it seems. You deduce a negative when there may be no negative just like you deduce a positive when there may be none.

Perhaps a bit of restraint is needed.

The leash is set at 6 months is that same as saying they check in on a 6monthly basis. Basically the follow up period is 6months.

Now I’m suggesting that Poly will exert their influence when they feel it is required. I’m not suggesting that in 6months they will topple RM. But they will be taking a view in 6months time on progress that much is clear.

Now what would your opinion be if we failed to land a PT in 6months time?

Reading your posts you would be disappointed if they fail to land a trial by the end of August.

What do you think Polys response would be if no progress is made in 6months time, for that answer I look to their track record.

Manifesto - Again you’ve quoted a post of mine but for what reason.

My two posts do not contradict each other.

Poly are supportive, meet 6monthly (half yearly), have not sought a seat on the board which we know they have not.

That does not mean that in 6months they will not expect some progress and if you study their mode of operation you would be foolish not to conclude that they will exert their influence when the time comes.

Manifesto - Have you done any back research on Polygon, their investing strategy and how they have behaved in the past with other companies? I think that might answer your question.

Then if you had attended the AGM you would have witnessed the line of questioning around polygons involvement. My takeaway from the AGM is that the leash was set at 6months to deliver the progress. Progress being a place on a platform trial preferably stateside.

Manifesto - You misquoted me on Poly. Perhaps go back and read that post in entirety.

I was saying Poly have positioned themselves such that when the time comes for the board to throw in the towel and move the asset on Poly would be there to apply the necessary pressure. Essentially they have given the board a grace period to enact their plan but any further deviations might not be given such leniency.

I fully expect SNG have received informal feelers around the asset and have rebuffed them, the for sale sign was not being flown at any point in the past 12months and for good reason.

I’m sure SSH would consider a further 2-3 years of research into SNG not a bad outcome after all he is an academic. He even stressed no commercialisation within 12months at the AGM surely you acknowledge that?

Now given the prospect of an informal offer in 6months time would you trust the board given recent decisions? This is where Poly will leverage their position perhaps we will see offers tabled that would have previously been told to jog on before reaching formality and us hearing about them.

Hopefully that clears up my position on Poly and you can stop misquoting me as you have a habit of doing.

Just pointing out the irony

Manifesto - do you intend to trade on your shares in the next 6-12months. If the answer is no it’s a bottom drawer investment irrespective of its performance over that period in time.

Or in fact are you expecting to trade on your investment in say within 3months since you keep on claiming an inflection point is due in august.

I made that post a month and a half ago that the time scales have extended.

You where adamant that that was not the case.

The clock is ticking on your 3month estimate you are half way through that time frame. Whereas inflection the inflection point is moving more in favour of my prediction I will take great enjoyment in reposting your posts when that happens.

Since you seem to enjoy reposting mine and twisting them to try and imply there are subtle meanings.

I’m very open about my position here. Whereas you are not very open about your intentions are you intending to trade within the time frames you suggest or are you in fact waiting for the end game therefore treating this share as a bottom drawer share!!!!