Member Info for HelloSanDiego

I didn't think those figures were realistic targets, tbh.

I expected £5 if Phase 3 was successful, then £7.50 with EUA possibly going as high as £10 if infection rates rose. £20+ would have been achievable if it began being used for other viruses, and I think that could've been possible with off-label use before further trials were completed. I still think the £20 is achievable in less than 5 years and the £5 target could be as little as 18 months away if things move quickly, though that's largely out of the company's control.

Just under three years ago the company had £3.5m cash and this February it was £25m.

Yesterday's presentation showed a statistically significant result that the one-third of patients with the most severe cases (measured when first admitted to hospital) had a 70% greater chance of survival with the drug vs placebo. Providing the ACTIV-2 and long-covid results don't contradict what we've already seen, I think this has the same potential that it had earlier this year.

The tickets for this conference were $175 for Senior ATS members and $500 for standard ones, so I assume they're prohibited from posting any of the presentations or events online.

I think that's why Synairgen filmed and released the same presentation separately. If any useful additional information comes out of it I expect we'll get a follow-up RNS in a day or two.

As B2HS2L says, ACTIV-2 is one possible next-step. With today's results the company might even consider going it alone with another Phase 3 trial if they use a different protocol.

Nope.

Try again after you'd watched the presentation.

Doc83 - "I can't believe yours already has one :D"

That doesn't surprise me. You were probably the first of those 20.

altube - "Feel we will be closing on or above 50p. The sprinter trial was the problem not the product. If we had had this RNS originally we would be in 4-5 pound area. Just will take time for the market to catch up."

Can't believe that comment got 20 votes.

I've literally just realised it's called intubation because they put a tube in.

I don't know if that makes me really clever or really dumb. Answers on a postcard to the usual address.

If Scinv had put it like that (comment at 14:02) in the first I would've been more inclined to agree.

But again, there will be a peer-reviewed paper and people are already putting their reputations on it. It's not a foregone conclusion the data's being misrepresented.

Yeah, it's weird. There's obviously a breakdown in communication but I'm not going to take to time to explain it to them again. They can keep on thinking they know better than all the doctors presenting these result right now in San Francisco.

Scinv - "I know they cherry picked it because that's the only thing they can do after ther trial. Lol"

It seems you're unable to understand why it all comes down to how they selected the sub-groups.

Scinv - "Well, I know it doesn't work that way."

How could you know that they cherry-picked the data they based today's announcement on without knowing what data they selected and without having seen the data they drew it from?

Let's be clear, the term 'cherry picked' implies you think they selected data to strengthen a conclusion that wouldn't actually apply in practice.

I think that might be how it works, actually.

But we'll have to wait for the peer-reviewed paper to see if they 'cherry picked' the results and variables, or if they were only able to properly identify the group that most benefits from this drug AFTER they analysed the results, because of the rapidly changing circumstance of a newly emerging virus. So we'll see.

altube - "If we had had this RNS originally we would be in 4-5 pound area."

I actually feel bad for anyone who believes this.

cjulien - "convenient shortcut you took here :) dont think the 2000 all fall into that subcategory..."

You might not. But until we see the results we're both making assumptions that are yet to be proven.

But the results seem to be saying that the drug saves 70% of those who would've died, but does little for those who would've recovered anyway. The problem for us is that the primary endpoint was focused on getting people out of hospital a few days earlier. Under the circumstances I can't say I blame them for prioritising that.

Just for perspective, 2000 people are dying each day from Covid on average, according to official figures.

If today's results show a 70% reduction, that's around 1400 lives that could be saved each day if this drug is made available.

https://www.google.com/search?q=coronavirus+deaths+worldwide

Stop talking about takeovers.

Do you really think anyone's going to pay over £200m for a company that's currently worth £70m? Because unless Polygon (who's averaging around £1/share) sells at a loss, that's what it would take.

A 12p rise isn't something to get too excited about. Everything still depends on us getting included on another NIH trial, imho.

That's what'll determine whether we end the year at £1 or 10p, in my opinion.

It's nice to see it back on the share risers list.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/indices/ftse-aim-all-share/constituents/risers-and-fallers-and-volume-leaders

No chance of an EUA.

If they were going to apply for an EUA because of this, it would have been in the RNS we just got. But I think the likelihood of inclusion on another NIH trial just increased significantly.