Member Info for HelloSanDiego

MrCosts - "You actually think for the last 8 months the company execs have just been discussing who they might like to approach? You reckon this is a good thing? "

Read my comment again. I didn't say either of those things.

MrCosts - "In laymans terms this is what brooke said 'we haven't found a trial and hope we can find one soon'."

Err, no.

She implied they've found more than one trial and are in discussions about them. But it's unclear whether the discussions are with the groups running them, or just among Synairgen's execs.

I think it's more likely they're going to spend ten minutes presenting slides for the data we've already seen.

Sharedealer - "SNG is a late breaker on IDweek website…"

Where's is it on the IDweek website? The only reference I can find is on a third party website (eventscribe).

....I assume they forgot to update it for the 2022 dates, and that specifically applied to Cases, anyway.

Here's the one for Abstracts: "All abstracts must be embargoed until Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2022, at 12:01 a.m. ET,"

https://idweek.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360060678534-Abstract-Policies-Procedures

So yeah, no embargo.

Sharedealer - "HSD perhaps as opposed to critising others you should read the rules of the speakers at todays event!"

I already did. I'm not sure what to make of this part:

"All case reports must be embargoed until Sept. 29, 2021, at 12:01 a.m. EDT"

Here's the link for anyone who's interested: https://idweek.org/presenters/

Sharedealer - "They are embargoed and there will be a 7am RNS on Monday."

Either that or you're rying to pass your opinion off as a fact.

They've already announced the topline long-covid results, so what would they have left to embargo? The conference was booked months ago. You think they've been holding on to big news since then? Get real.

AJ316 - "Perhaps because the presentation isn’t until after trading hours today today they have no requirement to release an RNS with the contents of the presentation until Monday morning. "

They're required to RNS any significant information as soon as they have it.

Manifesto - "Maybe I did not make my point clear.. What I am saying is that if they were offered a PT they would not turn it down because of a lack of stock.."

But your point is wrong. They might turn it down for that reason, but maybe not.

Since that's partly your basis for stating that a JV is almost certain, I'm just pointing out your errors in logic/reasoning.

Manifesto - "Surely you agree we would not turn down an opportunity. We can produce more.."

The RNS said they would go for a PT "when appropriate".

I think that implies THEY would refuse the opportunity if it isn't appropriate.

On second thoughts, it could be. "Tens of thousands" is very vague.

But the fact remains, when they say "PT trial when appropriate" could mean several different things. All we know for sure is that a JV would give us a worse deal.

Manifesto - "RM confirmed t the AGM that we have tens of thousands in stock... "

Look back at the conversation. It was me who asked the guys at the AGM to ask that on our behalf, and the question was about doses, not courses.

That's not enough for more than one large trial.

Manifesto - "Why would a PT not be appropriate?"

Because there's a chance of getting on a better platform trial which is larger scale, starts sooner or has a wider scope?

They only have limited supplies of the drug, so they need to be selective if several options might be available.

Manifesto - " When the JV is annouced do come back and comment!"

That sort of comment shows you're unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Manifesto - "I think RM & CO. realise that the PT route is possibly the longest to Commercialisation..... So IMHO they are
looking for a fast track option which is a JV."

It's ridiculous how many people agreed with that.

I don't think they would opt to hand over most of their revenue in return for getting the trial finished six to twelve months sooner. And before you say "it might not cost them most of their revenue", try to think of another reason a potential partner would pick up the $35m cost of another P3 trial.

Tommy - "If I spilled the beans, the usual suspects here would jump all over it as a negative against Synairgen"

But you've already hinted at the negative part.

Wouldn't it make more sense to explain the clues that led you to think this mystery company is ahead of us in the list?

That's great, thanks Tommy.

But I've got to say, I'm sure the company would know by now if ours was confirmed to be tested and I'd expect more optimism than we've seen recently. Having said that, the recent vacancy they advertised is a good sign.

Tommy - "The FDA are reviewing the final protocol"

Are there any links or official sources to confirm this? I had a quick look and couldn't find any.

JoeyDiamond - "14% for Mercks drug vs 4.6% in Regenerons P3 trial. Why in Mercks case was there such a huge difference in placebo compared to its peers?"

Since average hospitalization rates fell from 14% at the beginning of the pandemic to around 4% that we're seeing now, one obvious explanation would be that they were recruiting at different times.

Without spending hours researching it I can't offer a conclusive answer. But that seems much more likely than"there must be something fishy going on", as you seemed to be implying.

We didn't 2 years ago when that article was published .