Member Info for Ghia

It will be interesting to see what Polygons intentions are I personally see 2 plays but there may be more:

1. They push through the 25% holding in doing so likely lower their average to towards £1 and actively seek a buyer for SNG at a price point that allows them to exit at or above break even. (The SNG asset still has inherent value RM & Co would have laughed away a low ball take over previously but their hands may be tied now)

2. Polygon's investment case was built upon activ-2 participation and not sprinter, they've seen something they like in the activ-2 route and are doubling down and prepared to wait it out.

I fail to see how Polygon would throw good money after bad without some form of game plan. The size of stake they have is not something that can be just sold into the free market.

The saga continues atleast their buying is underpinning the price for now.

Who are you calling dumb Paraxel the FDA or SNG?

If you look at the activ-2 protocol it’s looking at virological improvement rather than life and death. Are activ-2 stupid??

All these self proclaimed experts need to wind their neck in.

Paraxel are world leaders the FDA are well the FDA and SNG are well respected scientists.

Andybe4 - You completely missed the point. You bang on about how easy and simple it is and this is all they have to do.

There are 8 examples there is major pharmaceutical companies spending hundreds of millions on drugs that failed.

In comparison SNG took us this far on considerably less.

How many trials for covid got stopped early due to zero efficacy lots of them but again you don’t mention those.

I get that people are hurting but this is the nature of R&D I expect SNG to do a deep dive on the data and report back.

People are hurting currently and money has been lost. A lot of people are blaming the company or themselves personally I see it differently. This is the nature of R&D you have to try things to gain understanding unfortunately this road to understanding is costly.

Below are a reminder that the big names have had much larger flops in their archives of drug discovery.

1. Acomplia - Sanofi-Aventis
2. Effient - Eli Lilly
3. Exubera - Pfizer
4. Fanapt - Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Novartis
5. Relenza - GlaxoSmithKline
6. Rogaine - Upjohn
7. Torcetrapib - Pfizer
8. Xigris - Eli Lilly

Again incorrect the numbers where fine the financing/timing model was wrong.

Time to completion of trial was the failure point they could have run the trial over years to accrue the required numbers.

And my other point stands you a portion blame on SNG but fail to recognise the part AZN played and more recently the part the FDA and Paraxel played.

You think you know it all when I’m reality we both know very little.

Underpowered AZN trial?? I'm not sure your history on that one is quite correct either.

Trial stopped due to lack of exacerbations in the target population that's not an underpowered trial that's just fundamentally designing a drug for a problem that wasn't there at the time.

Fast forward and there are now plenty of exacerbations in the target population due to covid.

Timing is everything and SNG have got it right in places and wrong in others. I'm sure big pharma do it all the time you just don't hear about it as much.

I guess you'll try and tell me AZN didn't have a hand in designing the asthma trial too and that it was all SNG's doing.

Andybe4 - Yeah it really matters to me actually, because whilst NDN claims to care about people that lost a fortune I very much doubt he does.

Before P2 readout this board was the best board on LSE we had some bickering but we had a community of posters who where not afraid to openly debate both sides of the argument.

After P2 the board has been dire it forced most decent posters to evacuate to closed groups (I joined these but in the large part they became ridiculous echo chambers so I left)

The ramping here was ludicrous but equally the de-ramping was terrible characters such as NDN constantly getting into fights and clogging the board prevented decent discussion from taking place which ultimately cost a lot of investors a lot of money just as much as the rampers.

But I doubt he sees it that way.

No Ndn you are now pedalling your own lie!

900 single arm was never on the table.

The reduction from two treatment arms or one arm came with a reduction of trial size from 900 to 610.

So they actually powered up the treatment arm from 300 to 305.

Your mythical trial was not on the table.

Please get your facts straight.

Manifesto - I agree there are questions that need answering I’m fairly confident we will get a debrief from RM once they have had time to do a deep dive.

I will reserve judgement on my remaining investment until after this has happened.

Ndn71 - And this is why I really detest your posting Ndn since you don't post with any humility or intention of helping people in my opinion.

You posted to say you thought the trial was underpowered, I posted to say that the trial had been designed in tandem with the FDA and Paraxel.

The 900 patient trial was likely lower power than the 610 trial since it was a multi arm trial doubt they could have combined two arms to produce a statistically significant result, if that was the case they should just add the P2 data to the P3 and there we go we have a stat significant result.

So whatever you think your previous post was, it was just your opinion way after the event. If you look back through my posting history at the time P3 was announced and even as early as P2 @home I cautioned that SOC had improved and we should be mindful of this.

I doubt you where even invested at that point.

Sadly I doubt we will ever know how much the trial protocol was influenced by Paraxel and the FDA.

Was the intention to use Drug + SOC or was this out of SNG's control.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing I can clearly remember PI's on hear moaning that it took an age to start the P3 trial. If they reversed the end points of the trial as you say the numbers would have likely needed to be much higher thus the trial even longer.

Bit of a no win situation for the BOD seems to me they tried to balance the risk of trial design vs time to completion.

Agreed Kevin - People are acting like RM & Co have been sitting on and digesting this news for weeks.

This has blindsided the company as much as us and they are still trying to understand the specifics.

The spouse of a PDMR dropped a reasonable sum in here as little as a few weeks ago.

The company need time to analyse and then lay it all out. There may be something in the data that offers hope.

CG77 - I’m not going to let you spout crap.

The board have not misled anyone. They’ve been honest throughout.

The fact is Pi’s have joined their own dots from the information presented to them.

The funny thing is if this trial had read out before dexa it probably would have had a massive statistical significance and then subsequent trials for dexa may have been inconclusive.

Timing is everything and unfortunately for us the goal posts have moved.

My guess is everyone at SNG still believe that with an appropriately sized trial it would prove statistically significant.

Problem is we are now forced down the route of platform trials to generate these numbers.

All is not lost but timescales have changed significantly here.

Might be worth keeping these in the bottom drawer and see what happens.

Interested to see polygons next move.

Donnie - for what it’s worth I think it’s likely they could get approval but the cost profile has changed significantly.

This was their shot at making it to market on the cheap. This now requires more larger trials that will need to be funded.

Next move from activ-2 will be interesting.

For all genuine holders here this is a disappointing day. Take some time to enjoy what matters most to you today.

Ndn - yes ofcourse I have uncocious bias whilst my holding is de-risked I still have a lot to gain from success here.

I find myself dragged along with the positive news just as much as anyone else.

Sid - The problem across all forums is the unconscious bias.

Everyone is presenting an argument based on some facts that are spun to suit their agenda.

People aren’t doing it maliciously on the whole but when you get a group of investors with money on the line you can see how favourable arguments rise to the top.

As you point out it makes a huge difference if SNG have or have not seen the data.

As PI’s we have to protect ourselves from our nature so the pessimistic view on timelines is the view I choose to take.

We know polygon are taking full advantage of the situation to build a massive stake, they are doing this at the expense of the inexperienced PI.

These false rumours that keep on surfacing are growing a bit suspicious

These continual discussions around have they have they not seen the data is not healthy. Unconscious bias and agendas etc get in the way and the result is a sense of expectation is formed on a date which comes and goes causing disappointment and share price fluctuations.

Simple facts are:

- The company is making some strategic plays which will benefit long term value in the event of good news
- every day that passes is a day closer to news
- we have all the patients we need so are not reliant on global covid concentrations

They will release news as soon as it makes sense we just have to wait patiently.

Ref Activ-2 the answer from the team running the trials is they are in discussions with the FDA to validate the trial design shift to accommodate the change in variants. No point running a trial if your output will not lead to a data set that justifies approval of the test drug.

Email them you should get the same answer.

The trial design was agreed before the trial started, this includes the way the data is reported and the calculations that will be performed on the data.

These calculations will be computed in a matter of hours once the database has been locked.

The time consuming process is cleansing the database this will be done by the team at paraxel and SNG will not be involved in this.

First TW or SNG will see of the data is when paraxel report on the data in the pre-defined format.

On receipt of this SNG will have a ticking time bomb in their hands and will release news to market as soon as practically possible due to aim rules.

If they want to run extra analysis on the data outside of the bounds of what was previously agreed this will be done after the initial RNS. This is the same as was done with P2 remember how SNG didn’t have all the answers on initial P2 results that was because they had further analysis to run and a deeper dive on the data. But couldn’t wait on releasing headline results.

It’s a choice to move to ftse 250 they don’t have too.

Mr Costs - This forum welcomes all opinions that does not mean we have to share these opinions.

Clearly you feel aggrieved because your are in the minority with your opinions.

We would all love a results RNS now but we must be patience. As it draws near frustration increases as soon as you accept it will come when it comes you’ll be happier