Member Info for Scinv_temp

That is a pps of under 1p

As of this moment I vakue polb at around £3M and all of it comes from an asset that is not in the frontline of their marketing efforts. HVO is a different story as they actually have a business.

Doesn't matter. For actual long term holders all that matters is the business doing well and growing. When I feel confident in a position I usually add to it when traders play their games.

I bought. Wasn't planning to, but I thought it would be a pitty not to buy a handful of shares at 11.12.

He bumped up my other posts too.

Moninis my little biatch now fyi

"When polb has actually published the data". Where?

BTW, tha k you for bumping up all these other p38 inhibitors by big pharma. People need to know.
Ta

By the way concerning 9 and 10.

Who cares? Lmao. Apart from he fact that at least it passed the scrutny of peer review (prefereably in a decent journal) it also has to do with how pharma executives feel about recommending to their company to invest in a project. Without a peer review (or to some extend with a trial publication involving efficacy where the protocol was published AFTER the trial) they are naked to their management and investors if the project flops for not doing due diligence. It can happen, but they get thrice the burn if it subsequently fails since they can't argue it had been scrutinised before. I lost you, I know. But that's how it works.

This one in particular killed me
"and? Poolbeg and I haven't said they are targeted flu. I can read.. "

Lmao

Also which on do you mean by MEK. Tyoe the exact reference I posted and lets have another laugh.

And here is an example

https://patents.google.com/patent/EA039897B1/en?assignee=Hvivo&oq=Hvivo

1. I think you need to calm because you are not thinking clearly

2. Why is polb doing an lpd challenge study even though they want to target flu? Because they ate trying to target flu induced inflammation not the virus itself.

3. What is a better surrogate model for flu induced inflammation, inhaled lps OR injected under the skin and in the bloodstream. You guessed it, its inhaled.

4. In the links that I posted you will see that they have also done ARDS trials. That is Acute Respiratory Dsitress Syndrome, it is a condition commonly induced by viruses and it is particularly critical in patients with COPD. Do you know why polb wants to test this for flu? Especially to prevent ARDS

5. Before polb/hvo (who has actually filed for the patents) people have suggested the link both for flu and for preventing inflamation from flu and other conditions. They have also done trials using very similar models that polb is using. Based on this, do you think even if it works, polb can prevent pretty much the top 20 pharmas in the world from using their own for the same?

6. Do you understand that everyone took a shot at this and failed? Your bet beeing CF will do it better than almost all pharma combined?

7. Do you understand that they are not even trialing this for flu specifically but they are using surrogate models so they can't even support their own patent so far?

8. Do you understand others have patented p38 use in flu before polb? (Link will follow)

9. Do you understand the concept of prior art and that not all patents are enforceable? Their patents (filed by hvo) are defensive, preventing others from claiming exclusivity on p38 inhibition (in general, not with whatever compound they have) not offensive (ie preventing others from doing the same).

10. Do you undestand that for all the claims they made they have published NOTHING, while all the others (meaning multibillion £ pharma) not only have done so but before they will (IF they ever publish).

Oh really? They have even done lps challenge trials precisely for this reason. But really, pharma has been looking to see what p38 does in inflamatory conditions for ages
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content;jsessionid=546AAB970F4EAA4489AEF546877B1A39?templateType=related&urlTitle=%2Fcentral%2Fdoi%2F10.1002%2Fcentral%2FCN-01031511&doi=10.1002%2Fcentral%2FCN-01031511&p_p_id=scolariscontentdisplay_WAR_scolariscontentdisplay&_scolariscontentdisplay_WAR_scolariscontentdisplay_action=related-content&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_mode=view&type=central&contentLanguage=

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content;jsessionid=546AAB970F4EAA4489AEF546877B1A39?templateType=related&urlTitle=%2Fcentral%2Fdoi%2F10.1002%2Fcentral%2FCN-01031511&doi=10.1002%2Fcentral%2FCN-01031511&p_p_id=scolariscontentdisplay_WAR_scolariscontentdisplay&_scolariscontentdisplay_WAR_scolariscontentdisplay_action=related-content&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_mode=view&type=central&contentLanguage=

Lps challenge is a nice tool to demonstrate mechanism of action. It has nothing to do with flu. Lmao

And you come back when polb has actually published the data.

By the way, you don't really think that since others have suggested this before polb will get any sort of exclusivity even if it works, do you?

And by the way the drug can't be both "designed for flu" and "repurposed". It is repurposed and a multitude of others have suggested thus before.

Here is one frommover 20 years ago. There are so many it is basically pointless to even make an exhaustive list. You didn't think thatpolb discovered the link between flu and p38, did you?

https://journals.aai.org/jimmunol/article/164/6/3222/90100/p38-Mitogen-Activated-Protein-Kinase-and-c-Jun-NH2

Here are a few examples with p38 inh and flu, from several years ago (not even close to being a exhaustive list)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000629520900728X

https://journals.aai.org/jimmunol/article/182/2/1088/81502/Induction-of-Proinflammatory-Cytokines-in-Primary

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182678/

https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(20)41589-3/fulltext#%20

Due diligence is your friend.

What is the false information you clown?

"Looking stronger than most pharma stock"
Based on what?

"Stick to the science"
They haven't even published the protocols for the 2 trials

"First in class"
Here is a list of other p38 inhibitora
RWJ-67657 (RW Johnson Phar- maceutical Research Institute); RDP-58 (Sangstat Medical); Scios-469 (talmapimod) (Scios, J&J); MKK3/MKK6 inhibitor (Signal Research Division); SB-210313 analogue, SB-220025 (Aventis), SB-238039, HEP-689, SB-203580 (Leo), SB-239063 (R.W. Johnson), SB-239065, SB-242235 (SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals); VX-702 and VX-745 (Vertex Pharmaceuticals); AMG-548 (Amgen); Astex p38 kinase inhibitor (Bayer); BIRB-796 (Doramapimod), (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals); RO 4402257 (Pamapimod) (Roche, Palo Alto), Celltech p38 MAP kinase inhibitor (Celltech Group plc.); FR-167653 (Fujisawa Pharmaceutical); SB-681323 (Dilmapimod) (GlaxoSmithKline) and SB-281832 (GlaxoSmithKline plc, Scios); MAP kinase inhibitor of LEO Pharmaceuticals (LEO Pharma A/S); Merck & Co. p38 MAP kinase inhibitor (Merck research Laboratories); SC-040 and SC-XX906 (Monsanto); Novartis adenosine A3 antagonists (Novartis AG); p38 MAP kinase inhibitor (NovartisPharma AG); CP-64131 (Pfizer); CNI- 1493 (Picower Institute for Medical Research); RPR-200765A (Phone-Poulenc Rorer); and Roche p38 MAP kinase inhibitor and Ro-320-1195 (Roche Bioscience), AIK-3, AKP-001 (ASKA Pharma), Antibiotic LL Z1640-2, ARRY- 614, ARRY-797, AS-1940477, AVE-9940, AZD-7624, BCT-197, BIRB-1017BS, BMS-582949, CAY10571, CBS- 3595, CCT-196969, CCT-241161, CDP-146, CGH 2466, CHR-3620, Chlormethiazole edisylate, CM PD-1, Doram- apimod, EO 1428, FY-101C, FX-005, GSK-610677 (GlaxoSmithKline), HE-3286, HSB-13, JX 401, KC-706 (Kemia), KC-706 (ITX-5061) (iTherX Inc.), LEO-15520, LEO-1606, Losmapimod (GlaxoSmithKline), LP-590, LY-30007113, LY2228820, M L 3403, OX-27-NO, NP-202, pexmetinib, PF-03715455 (Pfizer), PH-797804 (Pfizer), PS-540446, ralimetinib, regorafenib, RO-3201195, RWJ 67657, RWJ-67657, SB 202190 (Leo), SB 203580 (Pfizer), SB 203580 hydrochloride (Pfizer), SB202190, SB202190 hydrochloride (Roche), SB-681323 (Tanabe Seiyaku), SB-856553, SC-80036, SCD-282, SCIO-323, SCIO-469, SD-06, semapimod, SKF 86002, SX 011, SYD-003, TA-5493, TAK 715 (Takeda Pharma), Tie2 Kinase Inhibitor (Tanabe Pharma), TOP-1210, TOP-1630, and VGX-1027.

No it was not. The answer was "it is not a requirement"
For what?
For publication, it is a requirement
To be taken seriously, it also is