Member Info for spinnaker

Parexel Biotech have 20,000 employees based in Boston Mass and assist in running clinical trials for their clients and also getting new drugs to market.

It could be they habe been brought in for the USA to assist Synairgen since Clinigen's brief is only EU and UK.

Spinnaker

sarahrodz

Thanks for that interesting link. It seems Parexel Biotech are partnering over 100 companies in the Covid field and from the interview Synairgen was the first and dated from the initial phase of the pandemic. All I can say is that it is not at all clear what is the basis of this partnership and how it has assisted SNG.

I must say I haven't yet checked out the american company or our RNSs for reference.

Spinnaker

Sharesting
Please answer the question. Prof Holgate said 30 enrolled on 19 Nov.
Thanks
Spinnaker

Investowin, I agree with you.

With only 30 people so far registered on the Home Trial with current daily infection rates being c20,000 this is a shambles. Maybe we need to try and educate 111 health line to suggest this to appropriate new infectees. Does anyone have any suggestions how this could be done or have any contacts?

Spinnaker

Thanks for that link Schrow

Having just listened I have a couple of comments.

Firstly Prof Holgate did not answer the question on compatibility with other drugs. I would have thought the evidence SNG have as to the lack of contra indications when co-treating with other drugs including cortico-steroids should have been emphasised.
Secondly, the fact that by 19 November Synairgen only had 30 people currently within the home trial is very disappointing. I realise there are competing trials but still feel that the lack of knowledge about the Synairgen home trial in the GP community is upsetting and will result in many lives unsaved this winter.

I still feel that Synairgen will be successful but as many posters have stated this is for the medium to long term now.

Spinnaker

Thanks for that Blessed and Spedders.

I have just been looking up some info on the AZN m-c antibody and see that Phase one trials of AZD 7442 started in August with not many patients targeted and aim to conclude before the end of the year. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/phase-1-clinical-trial-initiated-for-monoclonal-antibody-combination-for-the-prevention-and-treatment-of-covid-19.html

Very much a fast track proposition then.

Spinnaker

Blessed.

Thanks for that. I had in my head £1500 for SNG treatment but no idea where that came from. Do you have a source for your suggested £3,000? It all seems rather early days for any company giving their pricing.

Spinnaker

Alinz, I hadn't seen the Sky News suggestion of £450 per patient. The BBC stated the company had not commented on the cost other than it would be more expensive that the vaccine. Given that the Regeneron mono-clonal antibody ****tail given to Trump is purportedly $3,000 plus I am not that certain AZN would undercut by that much.

There will be 'many a slip between cup and lip' for both vaccines and mono-clonal antibodies over the forthcoming months I have no doubt. Nothing is a cert, not even SNG001 but the odds on our treatment will be pretty short I think.

Spinnaker

Well Dibs, I agree. So much for the 'help' that government has been giving Synairgen.
This new monoclonal antibody treatment from AZN AZD7442 hasn't even commenced 'in vivo' trials as far as I am aware and yet the government has already promised multi million £s of orders if it is successful.

This treatment is more likely to be in competition with SNG than any vaccine so I unfortunately expect downward pressure on the SP on Monday. Having said that there will now be more journalistic and media focus on treatments and we could benefit from that as people will see how big the cake will be even after the vaccines are rolled out and the number of people who will continue to become ill, vaccinated or not will still be large. Because if our P3 trial is managed to conclude within the next three months we will certainly have a head start and possibly also a less expensive product available which could be very beneficial.

Spinnaker

The below extract is in the conclusion of the Guardian report.

The DHSC said in a statement: “The antibody test has been evaluated by PHE and this evaluation will be published in due course. This [PHE] report shows these tests are approved for use in surveillance studies, which is what they were purchased for.

“They were never intended for, and have never been issued for, widespread public use and it is misleading and unnecessarily inflammatory to purposefully ignore this fact in the report. This robust evaluation was carried out by PHE at the department’s request before any purchase was made, and PHE approved the test for use in surveillance studies.”

Obviously there has been some skulduggery in that the initial PHE assessment and criticisms were not published at the time of the order but my thoughts are that the 'at home' antibody testing is not going to be part of the near term solution anyway.

Not sure what to do but think I am much to late to sell. The strengths of ODX are still there and I don't think they can be blamed for the politicisation, not like Pfizer who certainly initiated it in their case.

Spinnaker

As far as I can understand Pfizer were not routinely and regularly testing the trial participants for infection. The press release implies that they only tested those people that came forward with symptoms. I am not sure the purpose of the vaccine is intended to prevent symptoms alone. For several reasons including:-
1) post covid problems including long covid affects minimally symptomatic and possibly asymptomatic people.
2) Some people may have not had symptoms but may nevertheless be infectious and the trial does not seem to reflect this at all. It will never be known whether infected vaccinated people who did not have symptoms were nevertheless infectious despite not having disease symptoms.
3) No age or co-morbidity information given.

I am quite surprised that given the similar numbers involved to SGN in hospital trial this data has been taken so much more seriously than our Phase 2 trial.

Also surely the safety aspect cannot be adequately proved within 3 months of a two year trial. The importance of medium and long term safety surely is of huge importance and much greater for a mass vaccination programme of healthy individuals compared to in hospital treatment of very sick patients who may die if not treated.

I am not a vaccine denier but am pretty concerned about the motives of Pfizer going public with headline grabbing PR and all the media frenzy and subsequent government and stock market (over?) reaction which has followed this. The SP increase in Pfizer stock represents billions despite the general understanding that costs were being underwritten by governments and the search for a vaccine was not intended to be profit motivated.

Spinnaker

Shiraz, yes point taken and how I wish you to be proved right.

There are two options.
1) Traders looking for a spike exit point which occurred on 8 October at 204p or thereabouts.
2) Genuine investors thinking that the share value would increase the closer we got to ex entitlement date. However again, they or we would have been better off selling at 200 and buying back in the 140s or 150s at the end of October. We could have bought a lot more shares for the same money.

Conclusion:- The LTHs who didn't sell at 200 and buy back at 155 or better lost out and the new investors or existing holders adding to their holding like you strictlyinc were royally screwed.

Therefore the ramp only benefited the traders or those LTH's who felt comfortable trading and were looking at their screens at the right time

I still haven't understood when the ex date for ADR holders was but assuming it was yesterday 5 Nov then the closing price on Nas on 4th Nov was $3.95 equating to about £1.51. The SP at COB in UK on 4 Nov was 115p. That puts a perceived value of 36p per share on Accustem. Very difficult to value the new stock but I will be very relieved if it opens and holds near that figure which would put about £7m on the new shell company including the £1m cash transferred.

I did actually sell a small part of my holding at about break even but am now well down again unless Accustem shows a significantly higher value. I would be delighted if it did but expect it to be between 20 and 40p unless there is a buyer already on the hook.

What is anyone else's best guess?

Spinnaker

Stims

Thanks for confirming. I think my post crossed with yours and i hadn't seen your previous post on the other heading.

So, both ADR holders and TILS holders at the relevant Date of Record will be able to trade their new Accustem shares on the first day of listing/trading on AIM. We just have no idea when that will be.

As a matter of interest do you know when the trade day for TLSA to include the rights would have been. Would it have been yesterday 5th Nov?

Thanks

Spinnaker

Hi Legalwolf
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

I think that RNS is as clear as mud. I also can't find any Notices issued by JPMorgan in respect of the ADRs.
As far as I have been able to ascertain the ex entitlement date always precedes the Record Date. This is because the Record Date is the relevant date that the shareholder must be listed on the Company's books to be eligible for the entitlement. and it is assumed that it will take one or two days for a new shareholder to be listed or a former shareholder to be deleted from the Company records. Therefore I can't see that it is possible that the ex date could be after the Date of Record. Therefore surely last night would have been the last day that shares traded on the Nasdaq could possibly have included the Accustem entitlement.
The record date is stated as 6th November and surely we should have received a further RNS if this was to be changed.

The way I read the RNS also seems to suggest that rather than the weeks of delay that we are likely to experience when the new shares cannot be traded the US will not have such a delay. If this was the case the Date of Record would not be today.

Very odd but quite possibly a screw up by the BoD or their advisors.

I don't hold ADRs but I can imagine all those who do may well be wondering.

Can any ADR holders throw any light on this?

Thanks

Spinnaker

The downward moves in SP today both here and in the States certainly put the lie to the mad rampers on this board over the past month or so saying that the imminent 'free' shares would cause a rush to buy TILS shares before the EX date and consequent increase in share price. That certainly hasn't happened either here or there.

Spinnaker

Thanks for clarification Moneygecko and Wisha. That explains my query. I suppose one could get an indication of US market valuation of Accustem by difference between US price and LSE SP at cob on Nasdaq today.
Spinnaker

John Henry
Do you have any idea why the Nasdaq SP appears to have opened at $3.84 after closing last night at $3.78. Surely the market would have priced in the exclusion of Stem from open. I. E. reflect a lower opening price. This particularly weird considering the UK SP has been dropping all day. Admittedly the US price has now dropped to about $3.5. If this is now net of Accustem it translates directly to about £1.33 which doesn't seem to imply much value to Accustem.

Any ideas?

Thanks. Spinnaker

Taverham

Your argument appears logical. If today is the first day that new purchasers of TILS stock do not receive any rights to Accumen shares and todays sellers of TILS retain the Accumen rights then £20m reflects the present market value of Accustem. The MC of Accustem is obviously discounted because the shares are not tradeable now , but only at a point in the future be it 2 months or whatever.

As you say this assumes no SP movement on TILS today.

Spinnaker

Sorry typo 'Lancet' obviously.

I just checked Lacet Respiratory on-line and our P2 paper has not been published. There is this interesting heading below stating that all research papers are published within 8 weeks of submission. Paste below.... Spinnaker

Online First

Below are the latest The Lancet Respiratory Medicine articles published online ahead of print
All research papers have been peer-reviewed and published via our fast-track process within 4-8 weeks of submission

Current IssueOnline First