Member Info for Joshholdforgold

Couldn’t agree more. The market will get excited the moment it can start estimating revenues/profits. For now it is ‘how much is this idea worth’.

This article definitely looks like the beginning of U.K. saying they backed our (synairgen) horse all along.

https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-initiates-second-global-phase-3-clinical-trial-of-its-janssen-covid-19-vaccine-candidate

Perhaps they did not achieve headline data in line with moderna and Pfizer

However if it were recommended to say my grandparents, I would encourage them to take it.

Having had COVID I feel that the risks of a new vaccine out way the risks of COVID to me personally.

1) I will be first in the queue, no concerns = 0
2) I have a few doubts but will take it = 0
3) I don’t know = 0
4) I have concerns, I don’t think I will take it = 0
5) no way, not enough testing or data = 1

I assume that neither the CEO of Pfizer or moderna believe that their product will go the distance. If they did, now would not be the time to sell.

Changed to 107 now!

Changed to 194 now with others at 198 at 200.

Yes

I have a few spare pennies which I will use hopefully to make a gain on the day (separate to my long term holding).
I am aiming to be first through the door at 8.00.
May prove to be the wrong decision but we shall see.
I think this will gain all day on this news.

Is there anything else?

L2 has bid at 196. Will update at 7.55

Upup - thought of a much better way of describing it.

If you imagine you have a coin heads=placebo tails=sng001.

You toss the coin (deaths) 3 times and they all land tails (sng001). Does that mean the coin is biased? Not necessarily.

But flip a coin 30 times and get all tails and you will feel confident that the coin is biased/loaded!

The larger the sample the less the percentage difference will be required to be statistically significant.

They are working to a 95% confidence interval and 3 vs 0 only fell in the 72% confidence interval.

30 vs 0 out of 900 would be over 99% confidence. The confidence with which they can say it was not chance, very quickly improves with an increased sample size.

Yes, Robort. That is VERY much worth noting too!!!

I can’t imagine it’s normal to point out that the competition is poor in a peer review (not that I’ve ever read one before!)

Firstly I think the key sentence is:

‘The results of this pilot trial have shown that SNG001, given as a daily inhaled dose of 6 MIU via nebuliser for 14 days, was associated with greater odds of improvement versus placebo on the WHO OSCI and more rapid recovery to a point where patients were no longer limited in their activity, with a greater proportion of patients recovering during the 28-day study period. There was a non-significant reduction in the odds of progression to severe disease or death in the intention-to-treat population that became significant in the per-protocol population.’

1. No hidden negatives in there.
2. 3 vs 0 deaths was not statistically significant. However it is highly likely that in a larger sample statistical significance would have been achieved.
3. Lots withdrew. They may well have cost us an emergency approval.
4. Very positive tone and exciting broad applications.

Well deserved for all those who held through the last few dark days.

Sorry The Times

Best thing in those headlines is the telegraph claiming someone has invented a machine that can sober you up.

Jason - I’ve re-read the rns and agree. Not sure what Parsley is on about.

Parsley- are you saying you think they are contracted but money hasn’t changed hands hence no TR1 or are you saying that you think the investors could go back on their pledge and decide not to take up their placement?