We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
They’ve been advertising for this role for months now.
https://www.aifa.gov.it/en/sperimentazioni-cliniche-covid-19
Go to the Synairgen section, download the zip file. Page 58.
Thx for jumping in and confirming Matml74.
In addition to the two primary endpoints meeting the z-score a summary analysis of death, intubation or death and severe
disease or death was also provided to the IDMC to be considered in their recommendation to either proceed (or halt) SG018.
Peelweight - I’m not in front of my laptop so can’t confirm the exact z-score and wording around it, although I’m pretty sure it was 1.4. I’ll revert in a few hours’ time.
In the meantime here’s a video clip explaining a-score.
https://youtu.be/2JjaWQZChqs
No worries Fruits. I'm quite keen to hear the results of the blow fill seal commercial scale batch run. Fingers crossed it passes all tests and are successful. It would be a major win for Synairgen.
If I remember correctly a Z-score of 1.4 was applied.
I suspect the 300 mark was reached around the end of Jul as Aug and Sep had 100 and 80 patients recruited respectively which brings you to the 80% which RM referred to. That would mean the results from the interim analysis became known during Sep.
Good post Fruits. As you mentioned the manufacturing requirement for ACTIV-2 was mentioned on here several times, yet some questions it.
RM also stated in the 30 Sep presentation that they will continue to test for variants. But, no further comments were made by him re timelines.
Some of you may have read these articles, especially the one from The Times. It makes for some incredible reading and well worth taking the time to do so since they’re quite long.
The two articles from the Vanity Fair focus on the involvement of the NIH whereas The Times’ article focuses more on the China’s influence on the WHO and the latter’s impaired response to the covid-19 outbreak
'The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins'
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins
'In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan'
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-risky-virus-research-in-wuhan/amp
'China, the WHO and the power grab that fuelled a pandemic'
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/china-the-who-and-the-power-grab-that-fuelled-a-pandemic-3mt05m06n
https://archive.ph/sj91d (Use this link if you don’t subscribe to The Times)
Channel 4 produced a great documentary, link provided below, which is well worth a watch. Unfortunately it is not available on YouTube anymore although I’m providing the link anyway as it seems in some jurisdictions it might be available.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/did-covid-leak-from-a-lab-in-china
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2sg_cwu6LY (Did covid leak from a lab in China – Channel 4 documentary)
alkin - I did a post a few days ago as to why I think Polygon secured the voting rights. The proceeds from the CFDs, once closed out, would be used to acquire the underlying shares from the other parties. They may have done it as it requires less upfront capital which may be in limited supply at the moment. This is what I suspect is happening and would explain why they have the voting rights.
It’d be a structured trade Polygon entered into whereby voting rights are transferred via another agreement which is in addition to the CFD which does not transfer voting rights.
From an accounting perspective they’d be the share owners since they control the shares - substance over (legal) form.
Re the question on timing of Polygon's CFDs i.e. why now and not over the coming weeks. There's nothing 'behind the scenes' about it. It's pretty obvious.
If the final 20% recruitment of SG018 is happening at speed, now that all the sites are up and running, you could see the trial being filled by the end of next week if they recruit at the same speed as Aug. If recruitment is at a higher rate it'll be filled earlier. Once the trial's filled there'll be more certainly around future timelines re readout, possible EUA and commercialistion which in turn should result in a (potentially significant) rise in the share price. (Uncertainty is no share's friend.)
As such I see Polygon just trying to increase their holding while the share price is still at a lower level. It's about not being caught off guard.
Fruitsnveg - In simple terms yes I’d say it boils down to ‘on behalf of’.
Aurora holds Polygon’s shares. The other three I suspect are the CFD shares. I wouldn’t read much into the jurisdictions - could just be a function of their industry contacts/partners.
CFDs don’t carry voting rights as it remains with the underlying shareholder.
This is my take on Polygon’s CFD exposure. Notice how up and until last week Aurora Nominee Ltd was the sole shareholder. Since last week Natixis, Jeffries & JPMorgan appeared on the TR1.
I suspect Polygon, for whatever reason, have an agreement with them to hold (i.e.own) the underlying shares subject to the CFD where Polygon will at a later stage use the proceeds from the CFDs to buy the shares from Natixis, Jeffries & JPMorgan. This enables Polygon to acquire a higher % with less capital.
Add 35 days to the date of last patient recruited for data gathering. Then a few weeks to analyse top line data (i.e. time to recovery & discharge) and progression to severe disease/death. The latter is measured over 35 days. In short about two months post end of recruitment.
Matml74 - I actually know that, but somehow thought algo trades only had the trade type code 'Algo' and not 'P Algo'. So got things mixed up a bit. Thanks anyway.
Interesting. In total there were 2,437 transactions today. 1,017 were algo trades and 1,358 were part of the protected portfolio transaction. That leaves 62 as other.
Adding to Matml74's post from earlier today.
12m shares traded today of which 7.75m were 'P' (protected portfolio trades) and 2m were 'P Algo' trades. I suspect the 'P Algo' trades are protected too? Need someone to opine on that. Tried finding a definition list for the trade types, but couldn't find a comprehensive one.
Other noticeable trade types were:
NLIQ P: 620k
PRIC P: 560k
CANC P: 32k
Lurker2020 - you may want to look into Polygon’s way of doing business. Having them as a shareholder and owning > 10% won’t have Synairgen taken over for a song.
Ndn71 - in this case there is (or seem to be) a difference between plain English and medical English. Hence why I asked those from the medical field to help me better understand the use of ‘broad’ in conjunction with ‘clinical utility’ when it’s believed the latter refers to ease of use.
If you read the thread you’ll understand. It seems obvious have fooled you.
Thanks for that article Matml74. Very useful. I do have the following question for the experts though.
Consensus have it that 'clinical utility' as per the protocol is used in the context of 'Work practice' according to the article provided by Matml74 . But, why is it used in the protocol with the word 'Broader'. They could've just said 'clinical utility' instead of 'broader clinical utility'. It almost does not make sense. Why not for example say better clinical utility. The word 'broader' is actually what made be thought it meant something else. I'm not trying to argue against the definition as set out per Joey - just trying to understand it better.
Staying on the pedantic theme :-)
So it’s not as exciting as I thought. Hahahaha. Brilliant. Thx Joey.
CW25 - no I’m not.