The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
It does. Pharma companies make some terrible decisions. Particularly in the heat of covid fever. I have been advising two companies with covid projects which would have not seen the light of day in normal times. Necessity is the mother of invention but greed and fear are not necessarily productive. If the pharma industry like this they will acquire it. So far they have not
Doc - I thought I was the biggest laughing stock not Prof - fantasist who made up a research career and keeps alerting people to the fact that Synairgen is not doing anything new or interesting when in fact it is on possession of fabulous technology and “overwhelming” data. I feel slighted that I am relegated to the second biggest laughing stock
Sorry I was not clear enough.
You posted the paper on transgenic mice. These mice have been altered to up regulate or down regulate IFN. Interesting the experiments maybe they have little to do with the administration of IFN. The problem of timing of administration of exogenous IFN does not arise with transgenic mice .
That interferon is protective is well known. That is why we all have it. That is its evolutionary purpose. The question which is relevant to Syn is to what extent can a boost of this substance you already have help. So far the problem has been one of timing. When the virus is already intracellular giving more is kinda too late as it’s principal action is to stop viruses getting into cells
Can we make a fresh start this week and avoid the personal criticisms. This used to be a civilised and considered board and I hope it can be going forward. These are stressful times and my paper losses at the moment are huge but I will try to resist lashing out
Tommy I don’t say I was “good” , whatever that means. But I thought the Synairgen phase 3 trials were disappointing, as I suggested they might be based on our past experience. Everyone else seemed to think they would be successful based on the phase 2. I looked at the data and to me it seemed to be same old same old
I am not sure what your point is. Do you think this is a great treatment at the moment ?
The former interferonologist is here. Interferons are antiviral . That is their reason for existing. They are produced naturally by most cells of the body in response to viral infection. They then pass to other cells where they can induce an antiviral state . IFNs are also immunomodulators.
There is no dispute that interferon “works” at some level. That is why the body has evolved to produce interferons - this is their original purpose to protect organisms from viral infection
The question is does giving more than you have naturally produce speed recovery? There are reasons why it might - particularly where viruses have evolved to mute natural production. However experience over the last 40 years has found IFN therapy has not worked well enough to justify routine clinical use. As I said at the outset - when I first made the mistake of warning you not to expect too much from the phase 3 trials - most clinical trials including, those I was involved in in the 1980s, show some response. Just not a good enough one to make a real clinical difference.
The Synairgen phase 3 trial has been consistent with this previous clinical experience .
Interferon has found a clinical use in Hep B and MS although it is used much less now because there are far better therapies
You will all form your own views but I would just caution against getting over-excited just because you see some differences in IFN treated patients. You expect to see these differences when you look.
Maybe in due course Synairgen will turn over a new rock and find something useful - these bio markers for example.
Now you probably all want to insult me again ….