Member Info for J_CIT

Oh I absolutely do.

All thanks to their own doing.

That topline data RNS should not have been released like that and we would have been at 1.20

Whoever it is needs shunning from the company immediately.

They should have released a separate one for IV study because that is fantastic news!

Activ2 has blown us out the water here to be honest but have they not hearf of damage control.

Driftwood you moron.

You only pay a % of profit to the tax man. If you reinvest it and lose all of it then youve lost 100% of it

I can’t believe they want to do another ffing trial. Especially now testing is out the window, it will be a slow process by any measure.

Unless they push for EUA of reduction in death, most of us won’t break even before the next pandemic.

When have SNG ever made a well timed announcement to coincide with anything

GHIA - if 90% of AZN market cap was wiped out in under ten minutes, you can be damn sure they would be giving a statement within hours.

Ridiculous how much benefit of the doubt this bunch get

Peel - easily doable on the 81 patients who didnt receive SOC

Sativa - they should have left at home trial read out.

Dropped 20% on the back of good results. Too cryptic and negative.

Spot on Andy. No excuses. He needs to go.

Either he didnt know - and its his effing job to know

Or he did know - and he should have known it would cause issues (Faron).

Either way - CEO’s need to know the finer details as well as sell a product. RM has provided neither.

Times up

Tommy - why would they have nominee accounts buying with Polygon and the front man if it was Polygon buying. It just wouldn’t be anything in section 4 like it is with Polars TR1s wouldn’t it?

As I say, no expert but alls is not as it seems.

Also, when Polar have been selling - there is no name in Section 4 which means it is actually Polar selling

Section 4 states “name of shareholder if different” {to the above named}.

Aurora have been on pretty much all the TR1s from Poly but JP morgan on a few.

I’m no expert from from my limited knowledge, a nominee is used when the shareholder wishes to remain private.

Might be nothing, might be something - but Polygon are NOT the underlying owners of their holding it would seem.

I think given the detail of the shreholders in the TR1s then there is no doubt polygon are accumulating on behalf of someone else.

See secton 4 of TR1.

Who is a client of aurora and/or jp morgan ?

Pointless keeping a short open. They have made a fortune and cant really go any lower. Non event

It's quite plausible that they are buying on behalf of a pre-established buyer. If AZN, GSK, Pfizer etc. wanted to undertake a buyout of a promising pharma without over exposing themselves, do you think they would buy shares under their own name?

Polygon crossed the threshold on Monday.

I wouldn't look too much into this as there is a slim chance they had such an in depth conversation with RM which would encourage them to spend the best part of £2m with confidence.

I think they planned to acquire £2m worth regardless with a larger plan in mind, whether it be TO, buying on behalf of someone, eyes on US etc. and this was just a gift to them which gained them 4% instead of 0.5% for the same price.

All IMO

RM’s sole job was to get this bunch of “nerds” and their product to market.

So far he has failed and it is down to a multitude of poor decisions.

I’ve backed him so far as I would with anyone in that position but FFS, to potentially not having a understanding of what was happening in a multi million pound trial is not good enough. And if he did know then thats even worse.

Why did he allow them end points knowing they are so narrow that it would always be challenging. Reduction in death is all it took for EUA.

And to allow the RNS to be published worded like that jesus.
Nail in the coffin IMO.

NDN - if anything it would reaffirm the safety profile. The efficacy will speak for itself when reduction in death is the desired outcome.

I'd be fascinated if anyone could add any numbers to it, and then forward it to RM and the team at SNG. I still think RM should resign on the back of that disaster and replaced by an ex-big pharma chief

circa 13% on Ph3 = 81
ph 2 = 101
home trial = 120 patients
Activ 2 = 8797 ? https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04518410?term=ACTIV-2&draw=2

I think that's enough to prove safety and marginal efficacy for EUA.

SNG should analyse data of the cohort that received no SOC, combine this with P2 readout (both hospital and home) and present this for EUA - or to big pharma who will actually get EUA.

E standing for emergency, which means it is critical and proven to save lives with no adverse effects as per the combined numbers who have received the drug.

Another trial is not an option IMO