Member Info for Scinv_temp

Don't worry Stakis, neither does the madman over there. Just a soup of words.

@Burble Any suggestions?

Are you the carpet cleaner or the one with the off license corner shop in some forgoten corner of rural UK? Not even joking, there were people 2-3 years ago that cleaned carpets for a living "explaining" the "science".

Little tommy is one the of the people who led people yo lose their pesnsion funds, houses etc by pumping this garbage beyond any reason. He is also happens to be the most stup1d of the bunch as he still maintains the same attitude while the rest have at least moderated their stance. Have you watched glass onion? He's Edward Norton, except no money as all his pocket money went into Richard Marsden's train wreck. He pretends to understand science except, for your your own good, undersrand that he does not. He is just a m0r0n trying to get back some of his money and failing.

By the way you can find the evidence on morningstar.

By the way, last week on hvo IR page they listed Canaccord Genuity Wealth Management with 21.6M shares (3.19%). Though this is likely on behalf of several clients, it adds to those reported on morningstar.

Fact is, you are useless.

Institutions hold about 10% of the company (62M shares), this you said is tiny, while Mo's options corresponding to about 1% or 1.5% shares on loan is "huge". So can you explain what drugs you are on and where to find them?

While you are it, please explain clearly what 1.5% shares on loan means?

@DeAar

I haven't posted on lse in a while, but after seeing your comment I could not resist LMAO

I talked about stratification over 2 years ago, but according to Doc_D and little Tommy (who pretends to understand science and imho belongs in a room with a nice metal gate) I was vile.

Meanwhile, SH et al just discovered stratification from almost 100 years ago, not even the molecular stratification that has been practised for over 20 years already. They even gave examples of molecular stratification in cancer but they are still talking about sputum for their own drug when they have known gor years there are patients that are specifically IFN deficient.

I am sorry for all the people who have sustained life changing losses Hopefully some others, will never shove their bloated and ignorant ego on anyone's throat ever again.

Bye

Oops
The link is of course here

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04732949?view=results

Well done guys you managed to have my post with the detailed info deleted ao I'm repeating.

For anyone with integrity, can you confirm that here:
https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=sng

Under Improvement Based on Entire WHO OSCI Score (the full table)

Deaths:
Day 7
Sng001 4, placebo 0
Day 14,
Sng001 9, placebo 7
Day 21
Sng001 12, placebo 9
Day 28
Sng001 14, placebo 14
Day 35
Sng001 14, placebo 17.

Total Deaths
Sng001 53, placebo 47
It's time to end this joke.

Also little Tommy, with your last comment you have expanded what I previously thought were the limits of foolishness. Lmao.

Lmao. I'm crying here!!

Do you know what that means little Tommy?

The ventilator dis a better job than sng001.that appears to alleviating some complications but people still die. In fact more people than placebo.

I am not doing any of that because I didn't lose any money. I meant the people who you convinced this was a gem and they lost their money mr corner shop.

Fruits, they get their salary, RM gets his salary and everyone (of them) is happy.

They've been trying to submit the data for a year and it's still a mess. If I were you I would contact a serious legal professional to examine whether a group litigation makes sense or not. You are not getting any money back where there is none, but at least, if that is the case, you'll prevent the same management from.doing it to anyone else.

Lmao at
Number of Patients Who Died Within 35 Days of First Dose

They show the number of deaths *at* day 35 (14 vs 17) not within 35 days (53 vs 47 in the detailed table towards the end).

Also at day 7 actually, 4 for sng 0 for placebo.

That is 53 died on sng001 and 47 on placebo. Obviously this is not atatistically significant either.

Little Tommy has been pretending to understand science for so long he started to believe it.

Actually overall more people died on sng 001 than placebo 47 vs 53

Sng performed worse than placebo at days 14 and 21. Day 28 a tie and day 35 it did just a bit better than placebo (14 vs 17) but over it didn't show a trend. Of course RM only presented day 35 which is highly unethical. But then again if any of you zealots here actually understood science (and esp how a science charlatan behaves and what chooses to present) you would have seen the red flags 2 years ago just like I did, whether you like it or not.

Last comment for a while, I promise.

The reason is I missed something earlier in this thread, about why the results show up now.

The answer is in the history of chages for the trial
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/history/NCT04732949

As previously discussed, many of the positive results presented previously was the product of data dredging otherwise known as p hacking.

The problem is they tried to pull the same at NIH and of course they did not pass quality control. Then they tried to submit again, and once more it did not pass quality control. Until finally it passed QC on the 27th this month.

That is why it looks even worse than what was presented before. Honestly, I've been in drug discovery and development for over 15 years and it is the first time I see two big fat red banners indicating issues with the quality of the data. Lmao.

The success of the company should have made me aware of my shortcomings. I bow to your genial revelation.

Also I said sng patents don't do much beyond protecting their specific formulation (if that, it was based on an ancient formulation which their main manufacturer in Germany adapted) and feom patent trolls out there.

I'm going inro the shadow again. Have fun.