Member Info for Tornadotony

I believe the Synairgen product is likely to have its own niche market. Around 20% of all Covid-19 infections are likely to have patients with pre-conditions that affected their lung capacity by whatever means. I suspect there is no other medication or treatment available that competes with Synairgen for this particular cohort patient group.

They confirmed that the placebo and treated groups were matched as equally as possible with respect to current smoking and their historical smoking history. Each group had one on-going smoker and around 12 with a history of smoking.

It appears in my opinion that the MHRA protocol has perhaps concentrated on the single most important co-morbidity which has to do with lung health capacity status and individual age. As we get older are lung capacity declines. Some older people do make a lot of effort in retaining their lung capacity but others because of say mobility issues and bone fragility may not be able to sustain their lung capacity.

TT

The RNS confirms metallurgy studies giving a 35% carbonate mix which helps inform the process costings for the BFS. The BFS is said to complete near the end of October.

The peer review publication allows two process to happen. It supports a clinicians decision to use a product off label at a patient's request where they have a history of lung function compromises. It also offers mitigation against the risk of censure from the GMC for the clinician in that evidence of no harm was being acted upon with respect of a good chance of efficacy for this patient group.

The second aspect that is opened up by peer review is that regulators are supported by the research community and are more able to be supportive towards a third stage clinical trial.

The clinical trial may be more focussed to segment particular patient groups such as COPD, asthma or long past history of smoking or envionmental exposures affecting the lungs. This would give Synairgen a qualified cohort of patients who get Covid-19 where it's therapy is the number one option. Competitors may find that by extracting this group of high risk patient's from their treatment population yields a high efficacy outcome for their product and so Synairgen is helpful in treating the higher risk cohort. It would also leave Synairgen in a unique selling position in the Covid-19 market.

Hi Trek

Point 1. Yes SNG001. To patient that were known to have lung damage before they arrived in the hospital with Covid-19. In China those with smoking histories did very badly and took up a lot of healthcare resource. So anyone who is suspected of reduced lung capacity by a particular margin gets the synairgen interferon nebuliser SNG001. That is the protocol position to get to this will help manage on oxygen and keep them away from ventilators and reduce mortality rates.

Trek,

1. Once they get a peer reviewed publication, clinicians have a justification to offer Synairgen to lung damaged patients (pre-Covid-19 infected) or those say with a condition like asthma.
2. Regulators can proceed to agree a protocol for a stage 3 trial.
3. A partner company that may want first call to have a licence may be agreeable to help finance stage 3 trial if they own part of Synairgen like in a Dragon's Den type of arrangement.
4. The company secures the product line for protecting COPD patients across a spectrum of winter viruses. This may be an international Zoom technology use trial as well.

TT

The last report still included Uganda in non-opps.

Despite that error and I am still favourably disposed towards Tullow. It has taken a lot of careful listening on Rahul's last presentation. I have a better idea of how this could possibly all play out.

In the short term all the oil companies may get roughed up next week. It has a lot to do with China being on Moon festival holidays until Wednesday. Effectively a major buyer is not in the market and we also have Russia in the short term over supplying.

Tony

Armenian hospitals are under extreme stress in dealing with casualties both civilian and military.

The situation on the Azerbaijan side is not clear or known.

Support 140p and resistance is 179p. With such a huge trading range volatility can happen quite a bit until that range tightens up.

At least one side is now willing to de-escalate.

The June book value figure do square up as you say. I can not find where I saw that figure for book value, I made a few errors this morning and this appears to be another. Of course the resource update changes those figures as they have quite a lot of moe in the ground.

I got involved in July at £13 a share and completed the entry when it was near £12. My intention was to have a divi beating nothing on the high street. So will these shares climb back up again? Eventually they will and if they do not my heart goes out to all those in a decimated economy and all the problems they will endure. If we hit much lower it reveals a complete lack of a recovery and so I will stay in the optimistic camp and believe the pandemic will end and each wave is facing a greater population of individuals who are genuinely immune. It then becomes like influenza and we just accept it and get on with our normal way of life.

This morning I tried to read through many scribes written last night and misunderstood the ITN news issue and thought Southampton Hospital was going to allow patients to have Synairgen Interferon nebuliser off label. I was not trying to mislead anybody and my sincere apologies for getting it wrong and it was a genuine mistake. I did comment later that I misread the thread.

I have good reason to believe that the MHRA protocol on the July study was pursued with a great deal of care by the scientists in this project. My comments on a favourable peer review or not, has shown today's movement of what is now likely to happen. The Southampton scientists are not responsible for the MHRA protocol. They act upon and deliver the results upon which the data creates for us to examine and evaluate and I am sure they do so with complete integrity. It was not my intention to create a conspiracy of any kind on this board. I was speculating on what a minority of others may have thought.

Regards Tony

Bought a second lot.

A case of how much it costs to pull over non opps 520M barrels of oil to 2P. It extends the non opps production by 12 years. In my opinion it does allow the 2022 debt to rollover and become the 2028 if the bond holders agree it. This assumes 50% conversion over to 2P. In essence it has the same value as the Uganda sale after all costs and paid back interest plus the principle and that also includes any taxes on barrels sold to host governments. The long term oil price would need to be $45 a barrel and all costs held to $35 a barrel. The company does have a case to move that 2022 debt.

Last week in October. Should have Uganda sale complete by then. The delay involves Uganda Government aligning their resources to meet future project costs they agreed to meet with Total. Presidential statement implies that everything is coming together.

I thought the hospital was going to use SNGoo1.

Once 1 hospital starts treating its patients. Portsmouth, Brighton, Bournemouth, Salisbury and Guildford hospitals will want to know all about along with many nursing homes in Eastbourne. This will be followed very closely by personal contacts within those hospitals. The Royal Naval Medical Core will want to learn of it as well.

I bought more between 54-57 range to average off my entry. I have noticed the company is trading at 1 times book value. Its not unreasonable to expect at least 2x book when a production mine is in operation.

The influenza figures were for UK.