Member Info for richlist

I think the overnight spread can be what is left on level 2 after the auction when all the day trades are taken off. That can leave a big gap. I might be wrong on that though. Do any experts with more knowledge know this?

My understanding is that large trades can be delayed by up to 3 days before they are declared. So this could have been a few days earlier when the price was around 44p.

You need to send an email to that gmail address. You will then be given details of how to get in to the verified telegram group.

I can also vouch for SNGMS and have sent details of my holding.

I have posted here in the past, but stopped as I had enough of certain posters attacking me.

People with long memories may remember me.

Going forward and holding these shares will, as pointed out, make us as minority shareholders very vulnerable.

It is important that we stand up for ourselves and do what we can to make sure the new circular and articles of association offer us as much protection as we can get. To do this we really do need to stand together as a group and send reps to negotiate as well as we can. To give them authority it will really help to have details of the shareholding they are representing.

Up to you what you choose to do, but it is in your interests to make the group strong enough to defend your shares.

You probably have a corporate action in your trading account to confirm this. It also says there will soon be a new circular with further details of this process. This will include an EGM to vote on the proposed delisting. However, as TFG now own over 80% of the company they will be able to vote through their agenda to delist the company (75%) on their own.

Issue of the OO shares depended on reaching the 2.9 million threshold for subscriptions to the offer and placing.

Read the RNSs for the last week. The threshold was not met. The OO shares will not be issued and your money will be returned in due course. The company will now delist from the AIM platform and become a private company. You can continue to hold your shares in the private company, but they cannot be held in in ISA or SIPP, so will be moved outside that umbrella. They will no longer be traded on AIM.

They still need to produce the new circular with terms and conditions. This may or may not include details as in the old relationship agreement to offer us some sort of protections. Then there will be the Articles of Association for the new company.

It may do no good, but there is always a chance that showing we are expecting integrity and will expose details to scrutiny might just help us be crapped on a bit less during the next stages.

If anyone would like to raise concerns or ask for scrutiny of any parts of this process use this form to submit concerns to FCA.

https://www.fca.org.uk/market-abuse-reporting-form

This is a good point Wigster.

Firstly, TFG are an existing shareholder, so will have the right to take up 2p shares in the open offer in the same way we can.

So, they are offering total new shares/total existing shares in the open offer so if everyone including TFG takes up their full allocation and no more, all the new shares will be issued. Probably they are not able to offer more open offer shares than they can issue.

But, as you say, the later calulations are min and max figures for the resulting TFG holding based on them buying between 13 and 18 million pounds of 2p shares plus 58million shares. So is only correct if TFG will not be taking up their own group of open offer shares. These would then be left for existing shareholders to ask for extra, or for the new IIs to pick up as placing shares.

Interesting that the final TFG figures do not anticipate them taking up their own allocation of placing shares. Either this is true and they will have quite enough in just their 13 to 18million purchase. This suggests they are not all out to own 100% of the company. Or, if they will plan to take up their open offer shares the stated final position for TFG is not accurate and they will have more shares and greater percentage than stated.

Hope I have understood the question and this contributes. to an answer.

Good that there are better and better treatments in case we or our loved ones, or the world need it.

Downside of this is that say SNG got on to the Recovery trial, SOC is improving all the time. The goalposts to show statistically significant benefit over SOC gets more and more difficult.

If SNG need to get through another trial and get to market they really can't afford to **** around and waste more time. They really should be moving this on to the hand of people capable to getting a large P3 trial done quickly.

You could be right Trinityman.
But another option is that SNG were just arrogant/complacent that there would be positive results from the Sprinter trial and put the building blocks for commercialisation in place too early.
I just hope they are taking this apart and not spending (what used to be) our money on supporting all this framework unless they have a plan to use it.

I looked at a chi squared test at the time of the home trial result and it showed that a study of the size of the
combined Active2 and home trial cohorts behaving as the home trial did would have reached significance.
Not sure if it would be valid or useful to look at the combined data, but makes clear that repeated small trials are
just ****ing in the wind.

Have not managed to read all the post here so apologies if this has been said..

Combined/metanalysis of the Active2 and home trial data could be very interesting.
If Active2 data is similar to that of the home trial, it is possible the combined dataset might have power to show a significant reduction in hospitalisations.
That could be a very useful finding from the point of applying for EUA.

Thanks Tommy D
From the Nature article on the Recovery trial:

'I have also been a bit surprised that some of the trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies appear to be quite underpowered and small, given that there's no shortage of patients. It's hard to see the rationale for doing trials in fewer than 1,000 patients for a pharmaceutical company that's trying to get regulatory approval for a drug. I'm not sure what the barriers are to bigger trials, and I think that's an important point that needs some reflection.'
'I also hope that RECOVERY — as well as the REMAP-CAP trial — have made some pharmaceutical companies rethink clinical trials. Initially, companies would say to us “we're not very interested in your trial. It's too simple, too big, and it won't meet regulatory requirements”. But they come back to us once their very complicated, underpowered trials have given them an equivocal result. I think this will make drug companies think again about whether they want to spend tens of millions on a trial in 1,000 patients, or work with a national platform trial that will cost them a lot less and will give them a more definitive answer.

That was the case when I looked with a chi-squared test.

Yes, great find. I don't know what statistical test it was running.
But I suspect that if the trial had been larger, even 900 patients, or double the size, it would have given a significant result.
So, eg trying 64 placebo and 40 sng.
I think we didn't need to do better, just have a bigger trial to get to a significant result.

No this does not mean rights issue.

The platform trials are government run and able to provide protocols with large number of patients.
This allows suitably powered trials to be completed quickly at no cost to the company.

From the limited statistical analysis I could do on the data presented, I strongly believe that the P3 was just too small and underpowered to provide statistically significant results in the context of change in standard of care.

The placebo group did much better in the P3 study because of the improvement in standard of care, including steroids and remdesivir, I think the further improvement (36-40%) in progression to severe disease and death with SNG over the placebo group would be statistically significant in a trial with a larger number of patients.

So what they are saying is that SNG probably did work, but we need to repeat the P3 in a large free government funded platform trial to prove this. This is not all over by any means.

With reference to my post two below on why the trial failed.

In the presence of steroids, SNG still showed upto 40% reduction in deaths/severe disease. SNG was clearly working well with the steroids.

My point 1 is a much bigger factor in why the trial failed.

I think there is some confusion here.

In the context of this trial, certainly for the sd/death data, we wanted a statistically significant difference between the treatment and placebo groups.

1) If you add steroid to both groups and the placebo group do better because of the steroid, the difference between the groups is smaller. SNG was still effective and the result showed a strong trend but would have needed a bigger number of patients to be suitably powered to show significance. Unfortunately Synairgen did an underpowered trial.

2) It is also possible that the effectiveness of interferon is reduced in the presence of steroid.

However, I think that 1 rather than 2 is the biggest reason for failure to get significance for severe disease/death. It is important not to confuse the two issues and blame steroids. This is not the reason the trial failed. It failed because it was not designed well enough and was underpowered.

I thought the P2 home and hospital arms were two parts of a pilot study, so it was protocol that they be combined as part of the same P2 trial.

That is not the case with the P2 and P3 hospital results.