Member Info for HelloSanDiego

Thanks for taking the time to get this info and post it here everyone.

By the way, there's a doctor named Jean-Laurent Casanova who seems to be doing a lot of work involving Covid and autoimmunity. Lots of citations for the work he's been involved in.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Casanova+JL+autoantibodies

John2525 - " The BOD have 263 days left to improve the SP, otherwise the one year max sp of circa 30p will make SNG a very cheap acquisition by Poly and friends."

Not really.

We have no idea what they'd need to offer to get a takeover accepted. But even at 50p/share it would cost them £70m on top of the £70m they've already invested, with no guarantees the drug will ever even be approved. They might be lining up a takeover. But at this stage they might have already ruled it out entirely.

I'm guessing they said "Withdraw it or we'll vote it out anyway".

Why?

The directors just give up an important aspect of their control of the company (at the last minute) because some unnamed shareholders asked them to.

Might've been worth asking what's causing the delay to the Activ 2 results.

NIAID must have seen them last year since they approved phase 3 off the back of them.

No mention of any new Activ trial being put together then?

On second thoughts, no. It's not THE reopening of Activ 2. It's just A reopening.

If anything, it hints that another arm could be (or is being) put together for SNG001.

MrCosts - "Very confusing, so we progressed to A2 P3 however won't be involved in the reopening and we are awaiting a new form of trial from the US? "

It looks that way. The day before Synairgen announced Activ 2 phase 3 was halted, the company developing this other drug (S-217622) announced "progress toward the initiation of ACTIV-2d (also known as SCORPIO-HR)"

https://www.shionogi.com/global/en/news/2022/03/e-20220316-2.html

There's no mention of that arm or that drug on the NIH Activ summary page that was being regularly updated.

https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initiatives/activ/covid-19-therapeutics-prioritized-testing-clinical-trials#activ2

But it looks like the Activ 2d Phase 3 is underway.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05305547

"The study, involving 428 patients, reached its primary endpoint in reducing viral titres, but did not show a significant difference in reducing a measure of 12 COVID-19 symptoms."

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/japans-shionogi-seeks-approval-oral-covid-19-drug-2022-02-25/

So SNG001 was never on this arm and I'm not sure why the delay in getting something running for it. But it points to the possibility that a new Activ2 arm could be getting put together for SNG001.

I think I've seen evidence on other boards that some PR/communications firms regularly monitor these discussions. So hopefully they'll have some answers already prepared in advance.

Most of them seem like rants from a disgruntled investor. Question 2) ARE YOU F***ING SORRY?! WELL ARE YOU?

Even with the company making the exact same decisions, if circumstances had been just a little different the trial could have been a success and everyone would've been praising the company for the making exact same decisions (eg. selecting those endpoints, hiring sales and marketing people etc).

Nobody was whining at the time about the new hires, because it was clear the company was planning for success.

At the very least, we should get some indication this week on whether there's been any meaningful progress in getting on another platform trial, or if NIAID is putting together an alternative to Activ-2 phase 3.

Aether - "A larger pharmaceutical company with more resources and political influence would have got this over the line"

Straw man argument. If you wanted to invest in a larger pharmaceutical company with more resources and political influence, there was nothing stopping you.

Aether - "The company lacks the experience and political influence to get this over the line."

I completely disagree.

The Sprinter phase 3 trial failure and the cancellation of Activ-2 were largely due to circumstances (i.e. the changing situation re: covid standard of care) and the company had the capability of getting on a huge NIAID trial in the first place. They've done a great job in extremely difficult times.

When an experiment fails, you don't immediately blame the scientists who ran it.

In spite of what I was saying a few days ago, I don't think a takeover is likely before another trial succeeds.

I can't see Polygon putting in a bid of £1 early next year while a trial is underway (or a bid of less than £1 being in any shareholder's interests), and I can't see another firm offering £200m plus for a drug that failed its last trial. I think Polygon's probably just expecting success from another trial and anticipates profits from its 29.99%.

If someone can ask any/all of these on my behalf I'd appreciate it:

1) "Has NIAID told you they're planning, or expect to plan, another trial to replace the cancelled Activ-2 phase 3 trial? If so, when is its targetted commencement date?"

2) "How many doses of SNG001 does the company currently have, and when do they expire?"

3) "Are you in talks with any groups planning platform trials that are expected to commence dosing before spring next year?"

Doc83 - "will there be 10% of shareholders that would decline a bid"

One point I was trying to make is that typically only 60-70% of shareholders even bother to vote. So if only 60% voted and Polygon held 30% of the shares, they would already have 50% of the 'yes' votes they need. How low could they go while securing the remaining 40%?

I posted this yesterday because I thought someone might be able to offer a good reason why it wouldn't happen. But I haven't seen one yet.

Doc83 - "they'd need to persuade 90% of shareholders to part with their shares to force the remaining 10%"

I think you mean "they'd need to persuade 53% of VOTERS to part with their shares to force the remaining 10%". That could be as little as 25% of existing shareholders (excluding themselves).

FTC7 - " I wonder how a holder of 25%+ would respond to a resolution [to waive pre-emption right]"

It was approved by 99.96% of voters at the last AGM, so I'd say they're in favour of it.

Take a look at the 'Notice of 2021 AGM sent to shareholders 25 May 2021' and '2021 AGM proxy vote summary' links on the Synairgen website if you want to see it for yourself. It was reolution 12.

https://www.synairgen.com/investors/aim-rule-26

Well several people on here seem to agree with me Tommy. If you knew a single reason why it couldn't happen that way I might take you more seriously.

Tommy,

Polygon holds nearly 30%. I'm inclined to think they'll be the ones who decide if the deal is approved or not. How could you fail to understand that?