Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Ghia
lol
I did pull the threads to one of the worst presentations on YouTube I’ve seen by someone with a tiny amount of experience and only 34 views.
10 of which are probably people on this board because you posted the link.
Unless you have something a little more substantial I shall file this under tangentially interesting
I’ve seen the study Ghia it dates back to sampling TopMd did 4 years ago in 2020.
I’m just surprised nothing has come of it in collaboration with BP etc since then.
Given the expertise Synairgen have in-house shown by them being chosen as a preferred partner for Southampton and JnJ.m and having done previous analysis of their own trials. Do Synairgen even need an external partner for this work in their trials?
One thing doesn’t make sense regarding TopMd
The EU Dragon project concluded last year. They appear to be a very small private company at least according to their published accounts.
There only collaboration seems to be through Southampton, with very little published scientific study work outside of that collaboration.
You’d therefore expect them to be using a high profile J&J Southampton Universal trial to promote themselves but no mention of any collaboration.
You’d think they’d be promoting working with Synairgen on these future trials. After all Synairgen has had quite a good profile during COVID in the U.K. and US and there are clear links between what Synairgen are trying to achieve and the biomarker platform analysis TopMd are doing. But again no mention by either party?
TopMd’s biomarker pathway platform has been around since 2019 so it’s hardly a trade secret.
Interim RNS RM
“We hope to maximise the benefits of treatment with SNG001 by targeting patients most likely to respond to treatment by applying both existing and new technologies for patient selection in our next trials of SNG001. This will enable us to focus on the most appropriate patients which will ultimately lead to trials of SNG001 in more targeted, but still large, patient populations at high risk of severe outcomes.”
We know Synairgen are using their own data. Data from Universal and the wording “new technologies”
Where these will come from, other than the mention of Casanova, we don’t know.
Synairgen are highly invested in patient stratification for our next trials and that can only be good news for a positive outcome.
For those who think it’s taking too long. Read the science on this subject.
Scientists have been investigating why some patients suffer severe outcomes whilst others don’t ever since SARS COVID arrived. It’s a highly complex area, not as easy as some on this board would suggest.
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/16/9161
Combining Deep Phenotyping of Serum Proteomics and Clinical Data via Machine Learning for COVID-19 Biomarker Discovery
Ghia
I didn’t say it wasn’t relevant. In fact I said the opposite, that they are both looking at the same area. But to be fair dozens of other companies are too.
Not the best YouTube example, it makes Phillip Monk sound highly interesting by comparison and that’s not easy to do. But from 12 mins on you get the impression that this is ongoing research that’s interesting, sadly rather poorly presented, but just a continuation (as even the speaker says) of work in this field.
You original post had a flare for the dramatic, as though we’d all been missing some great Synairgen / TooMd clue. I don’t see it evidenced in what you’ve provided in the links
They work in the same postcode, share a very similar synergy in the science but Synairgen haven’t mentioned them nor they Synairgen and the same applies to the Universal study. As I said previously great company, great science, but are they linked in our future trials is just pure speculation. Unless you have some magic bullet that you’ve not shared?
Links between Southampton and TopMd
Dragon is nothing new it’s an EU program dating from early COVID funding research companies like TopMd but also many others. No links to Synairgen and Dragon
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/research/highlights/helping-diagnose-treat-covid-19-more-quickly
TopMD are a spin off from Southampton
Working in precision medicine and molecular phenotyping and patient stratification.
All the things Synairgen are interested in and also working on. But so are probably 50 other companies.
It’s interesting, it’s possible they are working together but we have no evidence they are. They could be working with Universal and JnJ but again we have no evidence. Their science is first rate.
Https://biolres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40659-023-00482-x
“Alpha-synuclein dynamics bridge Type-I Interferon response and SARS-CoV-2 replication in peripheral cells”
In endothelial cells, SNCA loss-of-function promotes age-related dysfunction going along with hyper-inflammation and elevated blood pressure, which suggests a key role of α-syn in maintaining vascular integrity
SARS-CoV-2-induced reduction of α-syn multimerization was reversed by IFN-β, which significantly increased total α-syn mostly by promoting multimeric species to rescue α-syn multimer:monomer ratio in SARS-CoV-2-infected cells
These data suggest that the antiviral effect of IFN-β is associated both with stimulation of endogenous α-syn synthesis, and promotion of α-syn multimerization to counterbalance an excess of α-syn monomers.
Https://cellandbioscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13578-024-01202-y
Herein, we demonstrate that poliovirus receptor-like protein4 (PVRL4) is an ISG strongly induced by IFN-I stimulation and various viral infections.
Overexpression of PVRL4 protein broadly restricts growth of enveloped RNA and DNA viruses, including vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1), influenza A virus (IAV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) whereas deletion of PVRL4 in host cells increases viral infections
We found that both PVRL4 mRNA and protein expressions were induced by IFN-α and IFN-β
In conclusion, our present study showed that PVRL4 was elevated in host cells treated by either IFN-I
Our mechanistic studies showed that PVRL4 suppressed the viral entry by blocking the viral protein-mediated membrane
Wow
And there on the slide pack in SNG001
Is that the SNG001 you said they couldn’t be bothered to put on any slide or mention in any word.
0 out of 10 for honesty and factual accuracy yet again Doc D, but we all know apologising isn’t in your vocabulary
“Stacey Adam rounded up the whole ACTIV program and we weren't on any of the slides and weren't mentioned by name”
If we look at the facts the above statement about SNG is completely WRONG.
SNG is clearly shown in that slide pack Stacey used to discuss the Activ program.
There are two very simple but no doubt inconvenient possibilities for the negative narrative being suggested here. Possibly 3 if you consider Doc D has a history of playing fast and loose with facts.
1) if you look at the page where SNG is not shown. The page format and tabular nature lists drugs alphabetically.
Our drug would have been at the bottom of that list. There wasn’t room on that slide to fit all the drugs in using the format they used on every slide to display trial outcomes.
2) The slide was produced on 15th July. At that point we only knew our involvement had been halted but as per the RNS, conversations were ongoing about a way forward. All of the other drugs had reached a conclusion except ours.
It wasn’t until Oct that a further public statement was issued via RNS confirming the outcome of those conversations.
As clearly pointed out in the Oct RNS
“Based on the study results, the Independent Data Safety Monitoring Board for ACTIV-2 recommended SNG001 advance from Phase 2 into Phase 3 in the ACTIV-2 trial in October 2021”
The lead investigator said
“William Fischer, M.D., University of North Carolina (UNC), a lead investigator of SNG001 said: "These results, including a decrease in hospitalisations and adverse events among participants who received SNG001, are promising and warrant further investigation in a larger Phase 3 clinical trial”
So to suggest no one cared or couldn’t be bothered because of one power point slide is an absolutely absurd misrepresentation of the facts.
What can we interpret from a missing entry on a power point slide - absolute nothing
What we do know about the Activ-2 trials view of our drug is:
SNG001 was progressed to the next phase of the trial and in the final review for our drug the lead scientist reviewing the trial said, it warranted further investigation. You don’t say that about a drug you think doesn’t warrant a mention on a slide.
Had the budget been available our drug would have continued.
What we learned was NIH felt the trial design would not have been able to prove an end point given the number of covid infections.
What we’ve subsequently discovered from Synairgen is that we need a very specific tailored patient group to prove efficacy.
Strive is not the place to do that and certainly not within a timeframe useful to us.
Our power point entry could have been missing because of a mistake or because data or conclusions weren’t complete at the time of the presentation or because they hadn’t decided what to publish publicly about the drug continuing to the next phase.
We spend all day everyday talking about posts from a tiny number of people who quite obviously are either unhinged, have a meglamania complex or seem to think repeating what they said yesterday, the day before or 25 times over the previous month is new news.