Patent Q19 Oct 2020 13:24
Ok so don't roast me! Total newb here and only bought shares on Manic Monday after reading about trials back when they launched and incorrectly assuming the company was privately owned - Duh!
I've been hot and cold on this. Whenever you're backing something it's easy to only see the +tives - it's a bit like falling in love !!!
I first fell in love with the idea that the nebulised interferon could stop this and ALL other viruses in their tracks!
I went cold when I thought that a nebuliser was pretty bulky and inconvenient to use and thought that there are many cases where inferior products win over superior ones (was this drug going to be the new betamax?! went hot again when I thought that there isn't anything else that you can deliver at home. Went cold again on WHO trial results coz I can't quite get my head around why SC/Intravenous Interferon has zero effect. Surely it should have some? I wondered whether anyone has looked at the trial closely? I'm wondering whether they're using it at such a late stage that the problems encountered are no longer to do with the virus itself but due to the physical damage that's been induced?
Anyway, my particular question is about the patent. Prof Holgate talks about patenting the discovery of the aggravation of asthma by viral infection. Does anyone know what is actually patented here? If inhaled inteferon is the key to treating viral infections this drug I guess could treat any resp viral illness and help deal with the fact that older people have suppressed immune responses to vaccines. But if other companies can replicate the nebulised form without patent infringement we have a problem!
On a side note, my father, a doctor in Occupational health, based in Southampton just told me that he was invited to work with Prof Holgate 1 x per week in the 80s/90s - it didn't happen and that is one of his greatest regrets! I will plug him for more info on Prof Holgate!
Sign In
Follow the stocks
