We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
VanV, aren't you, and everyone else here, doing the exact same thing to the best of their ability based on the information thats available to conclude whether to buy or sell here?!
Honestly dude, sucha simple point, you should get this, you're a smart (?) guy, I followed some of your posts on NCYT
oil - its not to do with solid facts, neither you have them nor i - we and the rest on this bb have just what is released to the public domain and we read that and draw inferences (yes, VanV, inferences) from what we read to make a decision on what the outcome will be.
as it stands the news today to me suggest negative for the reasons ive outlined, and you, positive, for yours
not at all, im saying the priority here is get a working treatment to everybody that needs it so if they have sufficient data, release the drug on that basis and if they need to do home trials to get it in homes then run those concurrently with the mass production and delivery of the drug. and thats IF they need to do home trials, i would suspect once the drug is proven safethey wouldnt need to trial it in homes they would just have to put it in a home use format - home nebulisers have existed for a looong time
get out clause, they've been working with this drug for over ten years and have prior experience working with SARS COV so its an insurance option that allows them to trial something else incase it doesn't work int he hospitals which they know is a risk fromt heir prior work because of late stage patients
VanV - ill repeat the answer to the question you asked me three times and which I answered the first time you asked, its using the news that has been reported to make infer as to the reality of what is happening
tricky - i just dont think thats the priority here. the priority right now is to get a treatment that works, regardless of whether its adminsitered by professionals or non professionals, the rest they can look at later. Its the must haves and the nice to haves, administration by the latter is a nice to have in the current environment thus if things were going to plan i can not see why they would be wasting their time on it
Van, do re-read my post, i think you may have missed that I recognise there is a time imperative which is exactly why im saying thise whole home trial thing does not make sense. it only makes sense if youre not getting the result from the hospitals, otherwise why waste time, they would movestraight to approvals and production
oil, i still have an interest here however have significantly de-risked after the discussions and pieces that came out at the back end of last week. i plan to adjust my position accordingly based on how this, very fluid situation develops
its an inference Van - why would they want to move to home trials if they were achieving the statistically significant result from their hospital trials?? the urgency here is not on trials but on getting a treatment that works. if they have proven it works in the hospital they would run with that, move to mass production and get it into the hands of the people nationwide, that need these drugs not faff about with home trials - if approved as a treatment in the hospital they could send it to patients in their homes without the need for any further trials.
but they havent donethat, theyve moved to home trials, why? reason would suggest is because they've not got the result they needed from the hospitals and can only get the drug approved with that statistically signifcant result hence are trying to get that data from further testing and are maximising their chances of success with that testing hence are moving it into the homes
Chris and Van - Yes that is the piece, and the reason that it the time is the all important thing is because if it's left too late then it appears it doesnt work/isn't as effective. This was suspected by the team at the start hence the >24 hours exclusion criteria. And thats why it this is so telling, it's essentially a confirmation that the time is an issue and suggesting that its not worked to provide the statistically significant result because of the time taken for symptomns to show in the patient, get tested etc.
Infact this also brings up the whole question of even in the home - how effective can it be given that Covid is known to incubate for c.14 days in the body - does that potentially push the patient to the point of no (god forbid) return...where SNG001 doesnt work at that point either because forget the 24-36 hours being too much time, the 14 days before symptons show and someone suspects themselves of having the illness is where too much time has already elapsed
Oil - agreed, hence the point i'm making is the results so far have probably not been great, not statistically significant. Bottom line, if they were, then they would go straight to roll out and they could do the home stuff at the same time, but because they arent statistically significant to the up side it means they need to do more testing before its confirmed (if indeed it will be) to 'work' and they get authorisation to go into mass production
Hi Van,
I think given this is a drug that has been in varying levels of trials for nearly ten years and whose safety in patients is proven through those many trials, taking it into the home is a very low risk option for them but one which may potentially save the trial itself if it gives the statistically significant result they have hitherto not been able to achieve in the hospitals
It may be true that the idea time is to apply the treatment earlier with the risk beige as time goes on it becomes less effective likely the reason for the 24 hour exclusion criteria but then what this means is that this may well have posed an issue for SNG in that they were not getting the statistically significant result they were after and that is why they have now extended it. I described this in my post on Saturday aswell. And this was infact alluded to by the CEO himself in his interview last week when he was asked about a 'conclusive result'.
My point here is not that it's not going to work but rather the experimentation that has been resulted in a lack of strong evidence in favour of the drugs application hence why they are doing what they can to increase their chances of getting that sought after statistically strong result by increasing their chances through getting to patients even earlier.
What this likely means is the results from the hospital so far ain't good enough and now we've effectively set the clock back to zero as we try get that result from the home trials.
Not ideal. As the report said..
Maybe that's the case John, however I'm just stating what the company itself has said, the programme so far has been 'not ideal'
True, Gov, MHRA etc etc, but then again, there's a lot St stake for everyone concerned so they will make sure they try everything before they fully write it off
It says the time it was taking to dose patients in hospitals was 'not ideal' hence why they are expanding to homes. Thereby suggesting what has been witnessed so far in terms of results from the hospital trials is 'not ideal'
They've just raised 14 million they'll try anything to get the result given what's at stake. Try try and try again is the phrase that springs to mind
Or you would extend it if you didn't see good results and wanted to try any other alternative to get the sought after result..
The SNG team knows who gets what even if its double blinded. Infact the company has said this themselves - *not ideal*, I quote:
'' Testing for confirmation of COVID-19 is currently being done at hospital laboratories and results are taking 24-36 hours to come through. We are finding that patients often have had COVID-19 symptoms for an average of 7-10 days by the time they are admitted to hospital. Ideally we would like patients to receive the first dose of study medication as early as possible into their illness to give it it’s best chance of working and to stop the further spread of the virus,**therefore waiting for a further 24-36 hours after the patient is admitted to find out the hospital laboratory results is **not ideal.'' **
https://www.hra.nhs.uk/covid-19-research/approved-covid-19-research/281317/
i dont think this is great news tbh, I also mentioned this in my 17:07 post on Saturday (and got blasted for it) and the one subsequent how the reason for the move to home trials could be that they found they were not getting to patients soon enough in the hospital due to the amount of time that would have elapsed after symptoms, admittance, test result etc and the only way to remedy that was to get into patients homes to see the impact of the drug at the stage the study was originally designed for, per the exclusion criteria (>24hrs).
what this possibly means is that results in the hospital have not been good (let's face it, if they were then they wouldnt have to be complicating matter further by going into homes, they could get the approvals based on hospital results and then do the home stuff later), additionally it introduces further risk - if the hospital results havent been great then how good are the home ones necessarily going to be considering they may be reliant on self diagnosisof CV19 by the patient themselves, additionaly what is sensitivity/specificity of the POC test they are using, and then also what impact does this have on overall timelines - from a conservative perspective if we were to discount all hospital tests then that means e are essentially starting from beginning with the home trials.
This extensions sounds, in sum, as, hospital results not great, catching people too late, not seeing effects of drug, need to do more testing, moving into homes, introduces more complexity into recruitment, complexity around accurate diagnosis (PCR vs POC tests, former more accurate than latter and former only available in hospitals), may take more time to get and evaluate results.