We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
There does appear to be a culture within the DHSC of not supporting British companies. This not only applies to SNG, but also, for example, to the UK diagnostic companies, which have done a fantastic job, but have been largely ignored or, in some cases, treated appallingly. I wonder if it is something to do with a cultural resentment within the DHSC against the private sector, notably the UK private sector. There is quite a pattern now that going overseas, for some reason, seems to be OK, and the hurdles to doing business there (often at a generous price that would never be available to a UK company) seem to be much lower. I know Horby is nothing directly to do with the DHSC, but his alleged comments about SNG are perhaps another illustration of how this wilful disdain of the UK private sector appears to have infected public decision-making.
Good, but she doesn't mention the risk of molnupiravir creating and spreading mutant forms of the virus as a result of its mutagenic nature. While treatment with the drug may be beneficial to the individual, it could be hugely problematical for mankind as a whole. Given that MABs do just as good a job without this risk, we would be crazy to authorise the use of molnupiravir.
A must buy and read for all SNG holders
Case for Interferon: How a 1980s Cancer Drug Might Be the Wonder Therapy for the Twenty-First Century
hTTps://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1510765506/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabc_XARR3CA2T5A70YY41X2N
Org, yes, of course you're right about there being competition out there, but I slightly took the view that to comment on each possible competitor (and there are several emerging each week) would be long-winded and wouldn't add much to the discussion. In the end, I think we have to form our own views. Personally, I'm not impressed by ivermectin, while I think that, for example, camostat mesilate looks interesting, but I could be wrong and in any case I don't frankly put much value on my own opinions. You would have to have knowledge way beyond most of us to assess each one.
Doc, thanks. You'r right about my not saying much about maBs, but that's deliberate. As I understand them (and I will happily bow to better judgment) is that they are expensive to produce, they are not agnostic, and they require hospital supervision. I therefore don't think they are a strong competitive threat to SNG001 (assuming it works, of course).
Many thanks Org and others. It was written for PMJH's Reddit site and replaces an earlier piece that got deleted. Apologies therefore to anyone who experiences a bit of deja vu on reading it.
I think I read somewhere that the UK government has forbidden the export of tocilizumab before UK demand is satisfied, while also imposing some kind of limit on the price it can be sold at. Does that sound right? If so, does that imply that the UK government has a theoretical power to stop the profitable export of SNG001 to, for example, the US, if they approve it here? Outrageous if so, but unfortunately we don't write the rules.
Billclinterferon. Whatever he said, he did inhale
If you multiply our numbers by 5, their population being roughly 5 times ours, don't the numbers suggest that we are in much the same position?
yes, all the best to him and to you
lots of good points. My guess is as follows
first patient begins dosing - late December
600th patient (P600) begins dosing - late February
P600 finishes 14 day course - early March
28 days for post-treatment assessment - early April
One month for data analysis and review - early May
As I say, this is just a guess, so happy to be corrected.
I agree with that you don't plan for a takeover. It's like bowling for a run out. It just doesn't work.
This was what the BMJ had to say about Bamlanivimab on 11 November
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4362
As I understand it, it is for primarily for high-risk patients, i.e. with comorbidities etc. In trials against placebo it reduced the risk of serious disease progression for such patients from 10% to 3%.
Speaking from memory, yes. Who was the idiot who thought an antibiotic would work? (I think we know the answer to that question.)
There would be some poetic justice in that, given the apparent lack of interest from the UK authorities. The US seems to be more receptive to trying new drugs, and given the strength of the science behind SNG001, it makes sense.
One thing I do not understand is why the standards by which a treatment is judged appear to be just as tight as those for a vaccine. A vaccine is given in huge numbers to healthy people, whereas a treatment is given to a small number in desperate need (particularly in this case). That doesn't make sense.
Oxford12 - absolutely. Suppose, to keep it simple, that "all" is selling 100,000 courses per month for evermore. Using the same assumptions as before, this implies that the market is putting a probability weight of 1.33% on "all" and 98.67% on "nothing". Of course, things will be messier than that, but it does show how skewed the market has become.
I've been thinking about the current share price and fundamentally how ridiculous it is. Suppose we assume a profit of £1000 per course sold and suppose also a P/E ratio of 10 times. On that basis SNG would have to sell just 16,000 courses per year to get to the present market capitalisation. !6,000 times £1000 times 10 equals £160 million.
Of course you can argue about these assumptions, but it does demonstrate how dismissive the market has become of SNG's prospects. In other words, it represents an extraordinary opportunity for anyone still with cash to spare.
I'm very pleased for them. That's great, and I hope your brother and sister-in-law are soon the mend. ATB
SeaBoy, you ask a very good question. Like you, I'm here now to the end. When I first bought shares, my thinking was that this could work, but as time time has gone on, I have become more and more convinced by the science and have been hugely impressed by the team's professionalism. As a result, I have bought many more shares than was wise (and at higher prices), but too bad - I've resolved to ignore short-term movements, since the fundamentals are so sound.
As to what will happen, I have nothing original to say. In the, probably short, interval (6 months, a year, I've no idea) between SNG001 obtaining approval and vaccines bringing Covid under control, demand for SNG001 could be way over the 100,0000 treatments a month that they expect to produce. As others have suggested, there are increasing indications that the US may grant approval before the UK authorities, who don't seem to be that interested.
As RM has said, there is then the possibility that governments will want to stockpile SNG001, so demand may not evaporate altogether. One way or the other, this should generate enough cash for the company in due course to switch emphasis back to COPD and obtaining approval for SNG001 as a general anti-viral, but that will be expensive and will take considerable time.
I suppose that is where a partner could come in, but RM clearly has a willingness to go it alone in the absence of an attractive deal, and I trust him to use his judgment on that one. As far as a possible takeover is concerned, that is well over my horizon. Hope this helps and good luck.