Member Info for Scinv_temp

Jim -

They said they will update with results in Q2 so yeah at some point in Q2 they will, it is also within their right (regardless of how it looks like) to add new readouts so they can wait for those as well if they want to.

I did sell about half my shares.

So are you saying that in that interview RM did not clearly downplay earlier treatment, not just caution on the home trial, but downplayed the whole concept of it?

Do you agree that RM did not actually gave an update on manufacturing in the interview that was published yesterday?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you are right that there is nothing the we could talk about because it would obviously be pointless.

Reality is reality. It is our perception of it that changes. Of course I think I'm right and you think you are right. Perhaps if you pointed out what exactly you disagree with, we could sort it out.

That is the only weapon you have, gather everyone and report. Too bad that doesn't change reality

Lwt me give you an example, RM talked about antibody responses. You know how they test for that if they wanted to? They could simply have another readout that checks anti-sars antibody levels in placebo vs treatment and then say look, at least we helped induce a better antibody response. It would actually be very straightforward. Why isn't that the case but then RM mentions antibodies without actually testing for that?

My guess is for the naive fanatics to have something to be happy about. And £1.5M or 10 times, does make people understand science or the complexities of clinical develpment.

How is my "reasearch" poor and out of date? Come on then

Cannot use the loss against future profits is what I meant obviously :)

I just hope active and phase 3 go well and you did not sell before the 6th and therefore have to pay taxes for 2020/21, and then bought within an isa this week, and therefore can us against other profits in the future :)

Oh come on now, you know who this is and it isn't org.

Oak, if the people who think is hillarious are photographers and carpet cleaners, does it really matter if they find it hillarious?
:)

Right. But for that assumption to work, the have to stratify patients in way that actually fits that calculation and obviously the smaller the trial the bettet the chance for bad luck as well as good luck, so there is usually a buffer of extra patients anyway. But my main issue is how RM is communicated this in the interview, which was once again really poor and let's not fool ourselves, he did give very clear hints that they did not get as many events as they would have liked. It is also clear to me from the clinical trial records that they added the 60/90 days readouts after unblinding per original protocol.

But again, it isn't so much the trial that bothers me as how RM is handling it changed the tone all of a sudden from at risk to patients with oxygen instead of explaining what happened and how they plan to approach it. For example, in the activ 2 trial they are looking at biomarkers, so even of the signal is smaller, it can still be high confidence if the biomarker data fits the hypothesis.

Not to mention that he, correctly, said that the virus needs to be there and relicating, before changing the tone to patients in oxygen, except the virus is very much replicating early. A complete trainwreck.

The home-trial protocol was changed after unblinding. Last patient dosed 19th of January and 28 days later (so 16th of February or so) was the last follow-up per protocol and therefore unblinding happens. The 60 and 90 days readouts were added on 17th of March and further updated on 19th to replace long covid by more specific readouts like general anxiety disorder, fatigue, etc
Look for NCT04385095 on clinicaltrials org website and then search within the page for "History of changes" to see and compare previous versions of the protocol.

I have posted my opinion on the recent interview on reddit, on my own newly created profile "Scinv". You can also search for SNG001 on reddit and sort Posts by New and you will see my post from yesterday.

Many here on this board given a much better view on the trial than RM himself on that interview. That alone should be food for thought. After all, you are "following the science", right?

I you want my take on this go and find the post on reddit, can't post links here since this is a new account but in any case I'll be more likely to post an update on my reddit profile to keep as notes than here.