Member Info for Scinv_temp

Tiger, you need to understand that nothing from what I said makes the company worthless, there is value in clinical development and obviously approvals will increase that value. But it does change the ceiling of that value. Also keep in mind, that ii are not always right, often it is simply a decision to invest in a sector and in any case no one is perfect. If you think polar, or whoever, is 100% perfact, then put every spare penny you have with them and never worry about it.

Alinz the patent protects them from someone else doing something similar, patenting it and then extrorting them for some money with the threat of legthy legal battle etc. It is stu1d but it happens and this why everyone patents everything imaginable. Many of those are for that reason rather than stop someone else from dling something similar.

Mike, you need to understand that nothing from what I said makes the company worthless, there is value in clinical development and obviously approvals will increase that value. But it does change the ceiling of that value. Also keep in mind, that ii are not always right, often it is simply a decision to invest in a sector and in any case no one is perfect. If you think polar, or whoever, is 100% perfact, then put every spare penny you have with them and never worry about it.

*I don't think we will see someone afterwards claiming bioequivalence

Ghia, in short yes. To large extent because this is a biologic and not a small molecule. Not only related to patents actually, but still a similar effect. It is not straigjtforward to claim equivalence with biologics and skip the full clinical trials path because of their very nature. Add to that the specific formulation which (and I won't spend the time to dig deeper than I already have) I assume there is not an exact copy of something else but is unique to them. There is also always an element of trade secrets to the exact manufacturimg method.

With small molecules, it is easier because their structure and proerties are 100% defined. So when the patent of the molecule expires, then all another company needs to do is a small safety, PK/PD study and that's it. With biologics they are extremely reluctant to accept it just based on protein sequence, as same cells geown in slightly different way, or the timing of induction of ifnb/other protein etc could actually make a difference. So regulatory agencies are very cautious with this.

So no, if it gets approved, I don't think it will say aftewards someone claiming bioequivalnce, they will have to follow their own path. So they only question here is, can sng stop someone else from commercialising a nebulised ifn product against covid or flu that they developed themselves. And I think the answer is no.

It would be much easier if didn't have to write the same thing in 50 sightly (some times not even that) different ways for some here to understand it.

Yes that is my argument. It is you who thinks that just because they don't have the exclusive rights to nebulising ifn for respiratory viruses then the drug has no value. Clinical development which they are doing has value, obviously tied to approvals. I am not talking about exact copies of sng001, I am talking about other approaches with nebulised ifn (including beta a1), they have to do their own development.

I have been a member since last August or september but the gang here got me banned on several occasions

Yes. Less hussle this way and perfectly business as usual

You are still not paying attention.
 "It is all about what makes sense, az would need to spend the time and money to develop their own version, they preferred to buy an already developed product and they put the price you mentioned on it. They did not go through with the deal because it wasn't as efficacious as they thougjt it would be in that trial. Not sure why you are confused."

And by the way the valued it at £225M + royalties

Just to be clear, no one will claim that they have a bioequivalent of sng001, they say we have our own version of nebulised ifnb or another one.

Nebulising ifn b for respiratory viruses is not new and there is publushed use of it specifically for this virus befor they applied.

So they are not using a naturally occuring substance? Cause they've been talkimg about that a lot :) what you are referring to is their specific formulation, it is described in the patent and it is linked to Rentschler which is based on an expired patent. That doean't mean that something in there isn't specific to them, but it doesn't stop anyone else from making their own version using the same basic pronciple either.

It is.

What you don't understand is that using ifnb for flu or sars 1 or 2, either inhaled or otherwise is not new. It hasn't been new since the 60s. And even for covid, inba1 by nebulisation was already in the public domain and in use before even sng filled for those patents.

Kime you are not paying attention
" It is all about what makes sense, az would need to spend the time and money to develop their own version, they preferred to buy an already developed product and they put the price you mentioned on it. They did not go through with the deal because it wasn't as efficacious as they thougjt it would be in that trial. Not sure why you are confused."

And if you look at the linked patent, it has actually expired

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6030609

Matterhorn, here is an example of what is specific to sng001
The Rentschler composition, which is based on formulations disclosed in US 6,030,609 , has a pH of 6.5 and osmolarity of 290 mOsm/kg. The composition is preferably provided as a sterile, clear and colourless, ready-to-use aqueous nebuliser solution presented in a disposable glass syringe.
[0020]
In addition to the active ingredient, the composition preferably comprises a buffering system to maintain the pH at between 5 and 8, more preferably 5.5 and 7.5, especially 6.5. The composition also preferably comprises an antioxidant, for example, DL-methionine.
[0021]
A preferred composition comprises:
Ingredients Quantity (per mL) Function Monograph
Active substance
IFN-ß1a (RB) 11.3 MIU (40µg) Active ingredient HSE
Excipients
Sodium dihydrogen phosphate dihydrate 5.92 mg Buffer component Ph. Eur.
Disodium phosphate dihydrate 2.13 mg Buffer component Ph. Eur.
Sodium citrate 20.58 mg Chelating agent, buffer component Ph. Eur.
DL-methionine 0.30 mg Stabiliser, antioxidant Ph. Eur.
Water for injections to 1 mL Solvent Ph. Eur

As suspected, this is somehow linked to the original manufacturer (Rentschler). Now look what you made me do.

Retired and fruits. It is all about what makes sense, az would need to spend the time and money to develop their own version, they preferred to buy an already developed product and they put the price you mentioned on it. They did not go through with the deal because it wasn't as efficacious as they thougjt it would be in that trial. Not sure why you are confused.

That's right, it was £225M + royalties