Member Info for Haydn1

I am equally weighted in synairgen and faron(after taking some synairgen profits) and as Ghia says the inhaled treatment is cheaper and easier to administer so very practical for early stage infection.IV treatment is more expensive/,intrusive and is suited to a hospital setting, but potentially has the advantage when organs other than the lungs are impacted.subcutaneous injection(rebif)in some ways lies between the other 2 methods .given the inhaled treatment appears to be effective at a relatively early stage,then logically IV should also be effective at that stage.however my understanding is that it is only being tested on severely ill patients in the WHO trial.with my optimistic hat on I would like to think that this reflects a view that beta 1a has already effectively demonstrated its effectiveness regardless of delivery method,and the trial is leapfrogging to the scenario where IV delivery is most likely to be the best option. With my pessimist hat on I worry slightly that rebif(subcutaneous injection) has flexed its financial muscle to grab slightly less severe patients (with probably greater chance of success as a result).overall even that scenario is likely to be positive for faron if rebif proves successful. If subcutaneous injection demonstrates success for moderately severe patients it would be hard not to conclude the IV would be at least as successful (and probably better). If combined with positive IV results on very severe cases,the practical end result is probably a market for all 3 methods of delivery.inhaled at early stage where problems localised in lungs,subcutaneous where some wider issues,and IV where those issues have increased in severity. The exact crossover point from subcutaneous to IV would then be based on a cost/benefit analysis,with the higher cost of IV being a factor.

I agree information on the WHO trial is very unclear.the RNS does specifically confirm that Traumakine is being tested, apparently on severe cases.this would imply that Traumakine is only being tested on severe cases and perhaps Rebif on less severe cases.there is some logic to this although I would also like to see Traumakine tested on less severe cases.

I dont understand this fixation with rubbishing vaccines.This is not a zero sum game such that for SNG to win,vaccines must lose.Both vaccination and therapeutics have an important role to play in mitigating this epidemic, and ultimately that is more important than squeezing every last drop of profit from our SNG shares.I think a little less partisanship is called for here

Parsley 2 you are not really adding anything with your childish jibes at Eva.it is simply the nature of the pharma business that the regulatory environment imposes lengthy timescales on product development. Understanding this does not imply a lack of business acumen.

Firstly I am happy for Nolupus to comment as he wishes-his comments are generally well informed and useful.readers remain free to make their own judgements when making investmentdecisions.regarding the race to 300 I personally think SNG are better placed.leaving aside the detailed merits of the respective pipelines I am influenced by my general perception that press releases from SNG are much more self effacing than TILS.although it is not precisely what I am saying,it is along the lines of preferring under promising and over delivering rather than the other way round.Faron have a similar approach to SNG and I also favour them over TILS

As seen in one of the other threads it is is now clear that SA is following the same variant of SOLIDARITY. i.e separate treatments with either remdesivir or beta 1a.it is reasonable to assume that the WHO are homing in on these 2 treatments as being the most promising and that trial results to date support this

Overall helpful rather than unhelpful because of reduction in mortality rate,but design flaws mean it is really more in the way of additional 'circumstantial ' evidence of efficacy rather than strong evidence.most importantly it adds to existing evidence that beta 1a is effective. There have been a lot of small scale studies now into beta 1a by different delivery methods and as far as I know none have ever provided any convincing evidence that beta 1a is ineffective. It is the cumulative drip drip effect of these studies that convinces me.we just need the outcome of a large scale trial to provide the clincher.

Yes this is promising as it shows that trials are actually takingplace. It is not easy with the WHO to know exactly what is happening. If I read it correctly IFN beta is being trialled against remdesivir rather than in combination. If so ,any evidence that it is better than remdesivir would be very significant

Quesera yes I think that is quite a good way to rationalise valuation and on a fairly conservative basis. in addition the various covid trials are generating a more widespread acceptance that interferons will have a significant role in therapeutics (and specifically beta 1a)regardless of whether they become a go to treatment for covid itself.

Our treatment will be assessed on its own (considerable) merits.there is no need for these ridiculous conspiracy theories regarding vaccines.an effective vaccine is clearly desirable,and it is also incorrect to posit that Bill Gates is increasing his wealth via his charitable foundation.

A vaccine and therapeutic treatment are complementary. It is blindingly obvious that a vaccine is the best and most cost effective way to deal with covid,leaving a therapeutic treatment such as interferon to assist people who have become infected for whatever reason.there is no vaccine 'agenda' and no serious possibility of someone scuppering our therapy for commercial gain.

I have to agree with nolupus.positive trial results for synairgen can only be helpful for faron as it increases likelihood of faron also having positive trial results later.

I am a shareholder in both faron and synairgen. If beta 1a is shown to be effective after wider trials there should be room for both delivery mechanisms.Early trial results now (to some extent) reflected in SNG price but not faron price so some logic to reinvesting some SNG profits into faron.