Member Info for spinnaker

Thanks for that SGD. Will take some reading and I probably won't understand it. The gist appears to be that it relates to
1) method of dosage ie aerosol form direct to airways/lungs
2) IFNbeta product plus others
3) Patients with Influenza like illness for a certain time period therefore I presume doesn't relate to prophylactic application. There is reference to patients being over 60 years old but I am not sure of the importance/relevance of that.

Please tell me I am wrong anyone.

I agree that there is a requirement for a large Pharma tie up in the States but probably everywhere else too and this would strengthen the policing of patents. Presumably if there are no patents covering the Rest of the World ie everything but USA and Europe it could be a bit of a free for all there and even more important for SNG to get one or more big pharma players on board and through a licence agreement or other arrangement to use the formulation and knowledge and at the same time issue patent applications for these areas. I can imagine that the BoD have their hands very full at the moment and wish them good fortune. I hope they are taking very good specialist expert advice in all aspects. They can afford it now.

Except in China or anywhere else where they may disregard patents. I am sure that there will be plenty of cheap knock-offs. Are the patents worldwide richlist? I haven't checked

LSE seem to be listing all sells and no buys!

I may be wrong but I assumed that in a double blind trial there is no chance to select which candidates receive the drug and which the placebo since no-one knows who is getting which until after the trial. Therefore the statistical imbalance of co-morbitities, sex or ethnicity between groups was surely just chance and such imbalance always more likely with a small trial. Also the analyses will show whether there was faster improvement of at-risk patients on the drug compared to those on placebo. The headline 79% improvement may therefore appear misleading but this was stated to be after weighting/adjustment for these factors.
I have no idea of the time-line for examination and analysis of the detailed results and peer review. Are we talking days or weeks? I would guess it is unlikely that even Trump would go all-in on this before that point.
Very exciting to be part of this unique journey.

Has anyone tried 'fill or kill' orders with HL. Are these likely to get ahead of the queue of Limit orders?

I was surprised yesterday when I asked the protocol at a local private hospital for a small op I need. They are booking for early July. I was told that all prospective patients have to isolate for 14 days and then have a negative PCR test at a drive in test station (not local). I asked about the staff. The secretary told me that staff including doctors and anaesthetists are only tested if they have symptoms! How ridiculous is that? I don't fancy going to hospital at present under that modus operandi.

NZ are right if they want to keep the infection away. Our airlines and government are wrong. If there is someone on a flight or in an airport who is infected then a possible transfer of infection will not show up at the end of the flight. Similarly all passengers may test negative on the flight but may have been infected a day or two before they caught the flight or in the airport before the flight. I have written to my MP to say that the current proposals of 14 days self isolation without any testing is ridiculous because a proportion will ignore the requirement and a negative test before they are allowed out of the airport holding area and a second after say 1 week would show up everyone infected.

Any way you look at it the secret will be to get real time results (minutes not days), tested both at the airport and at place of isolation (POC) and multiple tests are required, probably three, otherwise when we start having millions of travellers every month it will all kick off again and we won't be able to trace a large proportion of the people involved.

I just wondered if Link's shares weren't sold on the market but were part of the Acacia deal notified yesterday by Acacia.

SnakeyRob
I think on the board visible on this site ,not Level 2, the trades are stated as 'buys' if the price is above the mid point between bid and offer and 'sells' if below the mid point. From what I have read this calculation is automatic and without human input and therefore the categorisation may be incorrect in multiple cases. In this case it would appear that the terms buy and sell are used looking at the trade from the end investors point of view and not the market maker's. I don't know but it would complicate things if it was vice versa on the Level 2 platform. I haven't used Level 2 so I can't tell you if is the same.

I agree it is confusing especially when 'bid' and 'offer' are looking at the trade from the MM's viewpoint. That is, bid is normally a bid to buy and offer is an offer to sell and it constantly confuses me therefore.

Just to clarify the profit margin 'in excess of 50%' mentioned in the financial statement of 14 May is an EBITDA figure and therefore not directly translatable to net profit to shareholders since as Swervington notes there may well be associated costs.

Very interesting but heavy going. Thanks Nolupus. I think that is from where I must have got my understanding that early stage infection is the likely target patient for our interferon nebuliser.

I don't know for sure Phoenix but would have thought it was logical. Others here are more qualified than I to answer. However I suppose the lung tissue take up may be related to lung efficiency which in severe cases would be poor. This may also be relevant to the timing of the neduliser treatment which seems from what I have read to be more beneficial at an early stage of infection.

RNS mentioned below. https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/FARN/publication-in-intensive-care-medicine-gkszsauc5viyape.html

Nolupus I had just read the RNS issued by FARN which is based on the paper you linked to below. I then saw this thread and read through the posts until yours at the top. Coincidence!
I note that the form of application of the IFB1a was by injection instead of inhalation but assume the effect may be similar. I have read that glucocorticoids are often administered in hospital as an anti inflammatory and it this could be why there was some press coverage over the importance of patient selection during the current SNG trail. I assume but have no idea that the boffins at Synairgen were aware of the work going on by the scientists named on the paper you linked.

Hi GollumK
Happy for you to join me as a newbie. Welcome. My story is similar but I bought in at the wrong time in early April on a bit of a spike so standing at a loss at present. Nevertheless I am feeling positive about this company and am very hopeful that the results of the double blind placebo controlled hospital trials due in June will be positive.
Undoubtedly, it is unlikely that the population will be vaccinated for a couple of years and most certainly not worldwide so one way or another we will be living with this virus for some time. My view is that early intervention drugs such as nebulised interferon if proven effective are likely to be not only popular since less intrusive than injections or I.V., but also slightly more accessible in a pre-hospitalisation or perhaps out-patient/care home scenario. Also the need will not go away quickly IMO. Synairgen also have other targets other than just Covid-19 such as COPD.
Good luck and let's hope the hard work of all the scientists and lab techs bears fruit soon.

Ok thanks.

Hi Formul1187
The article you link to does not state that the test drugs were inhaled through a nebuliser. There is a picture of an IV setup. Is this directly relevant to Synairgen's product?

My first post and late at night. Good morning everyone. I have been very interested by the wide variety of postings here and I'm sure I have not read them all.
I bought into Synairgen a few weeks ago due to personal interest in the product.
I note that there have been several notifications from 3 large holders since 20 March of sales amounting to circa 23% of the shares in issue. As I have read, each of the sellers may have their own reasons for the sales. I assume, due to the lack of RNS's notifiying new or building holdings over 3%, the shares have been bought by private investors. During this period the share price has roughly doubled and I assume the excess demand has been to the benefit of those large sellers enabling the sales without damaging the share price. Those three holders still retain circa 28% or thereabouts of the company.
This process appears to have been very well managed by the market makers although the volatility will have caught out people other than me. Nevertheless this appears a very solid performance over the period.
It seems to me there are both positives and negatives in the sale of shares by large holders but one of the positives is that the number of shares in the market may be larger allowing more liquidity. One of the downsides may be that there would be a perception of loss of confidence in the company.
I was wondering while we are waiting for news of the hospital trials what view some of the more experienced investor posters take of this situation.
Many thanks