Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
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.
The facts as posted by Gunto
“ Regardless of the outcome of these activities, which are uncertain, the Company’s available resources are sufficient to cover existing committed costs and the estimated costs of these activities
“until at least 30 September 2024”
So we do not know the company will have zero funds after the p2. The next financial statements and updates post P2’s will give us the facts.
Most of the content of this thread is at best highly speculative and at worst blatant misrepresentation by someone who posted a year ago we would run out of money before the end of 2023.
If you want to know financials wait for the financial statement. It will all be explained without any need for guessing.
If someone tells you otherwise, are they Credible and Competent and have the data to be believable
Replying to a colleague on time and delays
"I wish they had the sense of urgency to get us to this stage two years ago," he said.
Duke University Medical Center's Dr. Kanecia Zimmerman, the principal investigator for overseeing the infrastructure of the studies, said
“it had taken time to understand long COVID well enough to design the trials, isolating specific measures to determine whether treatments had succeeded”
It reminds you very much of what Synairgen have had to do in understanding and isolating all the factors that make a patient severely ill from a virus when so many other recover. Particularly as so much of this is cutting edge science.