Member Info for Scinv_temp

They can't make enough in relevant timeframes and they don't seem prepared to select the right patients esp early anyway. If activ 2 p2-> p3 transition happens soon (if at all) and they find the right partner etc maybe. But the required package does not seem likely at this point

No attitude. The board guessed it during that RM sachs speech. Not enough events to show statistical significance, the problem has been from the start how all of this is handled. The abruptly transitioned from a "Jeronimo!!" attitude to a sheepish one instead of being more balanced throughout. More to the point, they don't seem to care too much about the activ trial, not sure why but it could be because of the manufacturing implications of earlier treatment. For phase 3 fingers crossed that patients on oxygen are the sweet spot.

The mistake is that they should have known that none of this is easy, be more insightful about their lack of experience, be more straightforward to investors from the start and accepted help when/if it was offered.

The way I see it, they posed very strongly for very long and they had to tone it down and align it to reality better at some point. Though they could not resist mentioning India, without actually any material information to support that statement.

Ted then again, who's fault is it if they keep throwing buckets of water on the river shore instead of the forest fire, it's not like there isn't one.

Actually the breathlessness does not predict hospitalisation. If that was the case there would be more than 2 in the placebo group that would be hospitalised. Which means it is a useful metric but not a critical one since obviously the majority of those with high breathlessness score did recover anyway without need for hospital, they just did so faster with sng001.

Probably that is why they did not differentiate between the 14 day and 28 day timepoints this time.

Mike I never said that someone will make sn exact copy of sng001, I said they can amd will develop their own inhaled ifn drug. This is what I said:

Mike in China they were already using nebulised interferon ba1 right from the start of the pandemic, they even published it in February 2020. That was before sng covid patents. But the most essential thing is that others, before sng was even founded used inhaled ifns including nebulised ifnb for respiratory viruses.

China
https://journals.lww.com/imd/fulltext/2020/06000/translation__management_of_coronavirus_disease.4.aspx

Here is another patent from 1998
https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2002527491A5/en?oq=JP2002527491A5

Here is a patent from 1995
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6030609

Here is one including flu
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8551469B2/en 

Here is a trial from 1962 for a cold virus (inhaled ifn)
https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/files/538354/guid-b70a2bce-f956-4f3b-997f-72fe904f3da2-ASSET1.0.pdf

You can't just change something here and there and then prevent others to have a go at a concept what has been around for half a century. PERIOD.

Hahahahaahah

Novel could mean the use dl-methionine as an anti-oxidant. That doesn't mean others can't use something else (by the way this isn't new either). I never said therr will be exact copies of sng001, It means other inhaled/nebulised ifnb formulations.

It is ifnba1 specifically, it was specified in the cell paper that matt posted a few days ago and referenced. Also the patents I posted below are for nebulised ifnb respiratory viruses, not MS. With MS I gave an example of how multiple companies commercialised ifmb fir the same indication.
Anyone who clicks the links will see what a deluded liar you are.

Mike in China they were already using nebulised interferon ba1 right from the start of the pandemic, they even published it in February 2020. That was before sng covid patents. But the most essential thing is that others, before sng was even founded used inhaled ifns including nebulised ifnb for respiratory viruses.

China
https://journals.lww.com/imd/fulltext/2020/06000/translation__management_of_coronavirus_disease.4.aspx

Here is another patent from 1998
https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2002527491A5/en?oq=JP2002527491A5

Here is a patent from 1995
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6030609

Here is one including flu
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8551469B2/en 

Here is a trial from 1962 for a cold virus (inhaled ifn)
https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/files/538354/guid-b70a2bce-f956-4f3b-997f-72fe904f3da2-ASSET1.0.pdf

You can't just change something here and there and then prevent others to have a go at a concept what has been around for half a century. PERIOD.

AGAIN, all of this protects them from others from trying to stop them taking their drug to market rather than them stopping others. If sng tried to stop betterlife or the french or the argentinians it would be patent trolling.

Yes man but that only makes sense to patent if

1. They are using a unique not easily inferred modification (the are also standard things, you can see an example in the vaccines where most of them have a specific substitution to the spike the increases stability but they are not suing eachother). But in that case another can use the native sequence + any standard easily inferred ones

2. They actually own the ifnb itself and they want to prevent others to modify it as a circumvent to their patent. But that's not true either.

And by the way, this would not be the first time someone tried different modifications in ifn to see which ones are more stable/active and the narrative is about the natural protein anyway.

Ffs

There is nothimg soecial about paragraph 15. They describe possible midifications that could have similar biological activity. This is notmal drug patents. Many different variants are tested but only one or a few are selected for clinical development. But they describe everything in the patents because they want to make it very difficult for someone to differentiate by taking a step back and making a small modificstion. This all would have been nice if they actually owned ifn b. The don't.

And of course there is "IF" that happens with ongoing trials, but it isn't the only factor.

Tiger, my position is proportional to my confidence and in terms of share price it isn't just about approval but also when that happens and how long afterwards they can scale up and how relevant will that be at the time.

Matterhorn, sometimes I fear that you may spontaneously combust :) None of that means that someone else cannot have thier own verion of inhalable ifnb b, as they are already doing as there are others who have been before sng even existed. And patents are not about calling dibs, if something is obvious and easily inferred and you patent it, then this gives you protection from others, it is a good defence, but it doen't go a long way if one is trying to prevent others of having a go this obvious/easily infereed thing.

Avonex and betaferon in 1993 :)

Avonex and rebif in 1993

Gkb47, avonex (ba1) and betaferon (b1) were shown to be effective in multiple sclerosis, in 1998 rebif (ba1) was approved as well and others too. Why do you think this happened?

And for covid, almost everyone who has access to an interferon drug is trying it. Including nebulised. In China and other places it is a go to treatment during outbreaks and it has been for a while. What makes you think that the patents of sng is to prevent others from doing it, that is not the only purpose that patents serve.