Member Info for Matml74

Yep. MM's would have taken a lot lot of stock onto their book during the recent drop to 120 end of September. 20m shares traded over those 4 days. They are offloading today, hopefully to stickier hands!

Big Johnny, That graph does not cover every country in the world. There are currently 8k people in hospital in the UK so that number is a vast underestimate.

No they would not need to do another trial. The trials do not measure reduction vs placebo in every possible symptom outcome due to covid. The primary endpoints are quite simple. Time to recovery vs placebo, deaths vs placebo etc etc.

Think you are being a bit harsh. Final Scally assays were received by GGP on the 19th April. Would have taken the team several months at least to take this data and remodel and they were back drilling Scally wag by the 16th August...... less than 4 months.

SD has already outlined their program for 100% owned tenements in 2022 (Ernest Giles etc). Seems like they have plenty going on to me.

GSK have been developing their respiratory business for years. SNG001 would be a great product for their portfolio but these links are tenuous at best.

You want to see how big they already are in respiratory medicines read this.

https://www.gsk.com/media/3299/respiratory-brochure.pdf

Very excited by the protocol changes. Clinical utility for SNG001 can also relate to its virus agnostic nature in terms its 'usefulness', however the context in which it is used in the protocol I think it is as Joey states.

A good paper here on clinical utility if anyone interested.

https://academic.oup.com/intqhc/article/18/5/377/1790495

I hear what you are saying Antigua. Fair point. This past week was a classic pump and dump, a disgrace really that the FCA lets these things happen, but it is what it is and the share price is back where it was last week.

The potential for a lowball takeover is there as SD alluded to yesterday, but he also put the pressure on himself to grow this company to ensure this does not happen and if he doesn't then his job will be on the line. The company really does need some major II backing to fend of any potential takeovers and so hopefully with the PFS he can get some institutional buying at these levels who are in for the longer term growth.

Antigua,

Because the PFS in this current state provides the grounds for NCM to progress to the DFS stage which require board approval and sign off on a PFS from a GGP point of view enables the company to go to approach banks to debt finance their portion of the mine build. At present without this PFS the company is only funded to next December. The company now has leverage and a speedy access to first production.

So the real question would be why wait any longer when the PFS provides the opportunity now to get move forward at a faster rate. All those other ounces will end up in the DFS in any case once.

"Thinking about the PFS, it does seem to have created some questions. No doubt it’s a big step forward, but would it have not been better to release alongside or at least with an updated MRE. I know they have answered the question in part in relation to timing, but the NPV does seem low and could be construed as a negative."

The NPV was always going to be small as there is limited data they can include in it according to JORC standards.

MRE's and PFS can only include data that meets the rigorous JORC standards required of these documents. I don't believe either Newcrest or GGP have ever said infill drilling was complete, in fact it is not possible that it is complete or they will never be able to produce further MRE's let alone the definitive feasibility study due next year. The narrative out of GGP and Newcrest since March 21 has been growth drilling to try and define the extent of the resource. This has identified new high grade zones in an 'Eastern Breccia' and 'SE Cresent deeps zone"....... and still not defined where the resource ends.

Whilst the MRE upgrade in December is highly anticipated, based on the limited infill drilling in 2021 alongside the significant lab assay delays I don't see a huge increase in MRE when it comes. But we know these new growth areas now discover will eventually add significant ounces to the MRE. As SD recently said it will take years of drilling to define the Havieron resource.

Rory, They do if it's on the Havieron Tenement.

Go and do some research on the ore body you muppet. GGP second lowest cost gold producer on the planet, mining start up phase self funds a 20m+ ounce copper gold deposit.

If you think those basic metrics are going to fool anyone here you are thicker than two planks.

...... and we all know they won't be just processing 2mt per annum. Will be more like 4/5mt once the new studies come in. Economics skyrocket once that is the case.

Everyone should be reading this growth update RNS rather than listening to the newbies showing up this morning claim the SP will tank.

“The rest of the orebody is 1g/t breccia.”

No it’s not you muppet. Go and look at the growth drilling grades from 2021. What has been included in the pfs dates back to prior to 1st March..... and Newcrest and GGP have always stated 2-3 years to production.

The PFS is based on Ore Reserves of 14Mt and does not consider 37Mt of Inferred Mineral Resource.

It is basing the numbers on 2mt per annum. The FS will explore expanding to 3mt or greater per annum.

The MRE produced a figure of 50mt. So the PFS is utilising just over a quarter of the tonnage indicated in last Decembers MRE. We know that this tonnage is much larger now and will be upgraded in December.

The PFS shows that mining this ore body is economic and it will become a mine. The numbers will grow larger, probably much larger over time and there is huge growth opportunities as stressed by Newcrest in the PFS and also their growth rns out today.

Doc, I do not. I presume in the same way that has been done with P2 home trial or Activ/Sprinter approach, in that the initial treatment will be done with a practitioner, either in hospital/health care setting or via the web as per P2 home trial. All to be revealed at some point and just speculation by me at present.

I agree Doc the hospital is the first point of call. However we know that those patients even on the Sprinter trial have started their treatment in hospital and taken the drug home to finish the course. It is not a big step from there to patients attending a GP clinic with the early stages of breathless covid and being prescribed SNG to take at home.

I suspect the regulators will need to allow in the their use application for SNG001 both hospital and home use. The idea around SNG001 aside from treating the symptoms of the infection is to free up hospital bed space which is still urgently needed in the vast majority of countries where covid exists.

Doc, Can you point me to that please as I have not read that re: hospital use. Considering this MAB is for use in mild to moderate patients in all other jurdiscations it has received EAU I find this very unusual........ unless people are turning up to hospital with mild cases not requiring oxygen..

Here is the EMA recommendation as well....

"The Agency concluded that sotrovimab can be used to treat confirmed COVID-19 in adults and adolescents (aged 12 years and above and weighing at least 40 kg) who do not require supplemental oxygen therapy and who are at risk of progressing to severe COVID-19."

It is indeed very exciting times. A momentous day in the history of this company. Well done to all shareholders and many thanks to all those whole provide valuable information on the company on these and other platforms.

Doc, Sotrovimab is under EUA in the US for outpatients not hospitalised patients and the EUA says the following.....

The FDA has issued this EUA, as requested by GlaxoSmithKline, for the unapproved product, sotrovimab, for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults and pediatric patients (12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg) with positive results of direct SARS-CoV-2 viral testing, and who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death.

Although limited scientific information is available, based on the totality of the scientific evidence available to date, it is reasonable to believe that sotrovimab may be effective for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in certain at-risk patients.