Member Info for Wigster77

I was thinking the same HSD.

How on earth are Synairgen still in Activ-2? Surely if the trial isn't viable for one, due to external factors (the diminishing of the C19 problem), then it's not viable for all (or "both" in this case)?

If they were to can the trials altogether then SAB and Synairgen would be notified at the same time. You definitely wouldn't bin one, wait a few days or weeks and then bin the other.

Why are Synairgen still in the game? Happy that they are, of course, but it seems too good to be true... (appreciating the fact that still being in trials isn't exactly the be-all and end-all as we all well know by now...)

Please lead by example Ravenspads...

I fear that you may be correct in the length of time we are made to wait for significant information from the company, TLW.
However, I do feel that it would certainly ease shareholders' minds if *some* update was forthcoming this coming week...preferably something as indignantly positive as possible. I would like to hear from the horses mouths the following for example:

- Re-iterations of the positives from previous trials, that they still firmly believe in the science and that they still have the drive, passion and acumen to push the company forward
- That no stone will be left unturned and no solution overlooked in order to get their products to market
- That they are still engaged with various previously announced partners in order for the above to happen as soon as possible
- That they are delighted that Polygon have increased their holding and that their faith in the company is well founded.

I have an IQ somewhere between a sprout and a cabbage, so I'm sure with their surfeit of professors, academics and business-savvy people, Synairgen could do far better than my above suggestions. Point being that we need something. We need to be able to "see" the company with which we have entrusted our hard-earned cash, so we can see that they're really up for this.

For the record, I haven't sold any of my shares and indeed increased my holding by 66% on Wednesday.

It was in the RNS wasn't it?

Synairgen's situation is something akin to a company I heard of who were developing a new tablet to ease headaches many years ago. Following excellent Phase 1 lab results they started real-world testing:

Phase 2 - "We got 500 volunteers horrifically drunk. The following day, they all awoke with headaches. We administered "Headacheaway" to 250, whose heads all cleared within 2 hours, with no fatalities or even side-effects. The placebo group were all complaining of banging heads for days. Buoyed by these results we moved onto P3"

Phase 3 - "We increased to 1000 volunteers. Similar method to P2, but this time the 500 people administered "Headacheaway" were subjected to music at 140db and strobe lighting. These people all recovered and no one died, but it took a bit longer, bringing results closer to the placebo groups. However, we saw enough encouragement to progress to a further phase"

Phase 3b - "At great cost to the company in Stella and Whisky, we increased to 2000 volunteers. Similar to P2 and P3 methods, except this time unbeknownst to us, the 1000 people administered "Headacheaway" were either given a ****tail of other potions, including sulphuric acid and mustard gas or hit around the head repeatedly with a 2" x 2" thick piece of wood. Although most people survived, which is encouraging, these people are still complaining of headaches.

We feel that this proves that "Headacheaway" isn't feasible to progress any further in this type of trial at the moment".

Just a little something to try and raise a smile after a tough week :-)

Agreed wpa5.

It does work. Many many independent scientific papers around the world show it works. Synairgen have proven that it works. It just needs the correct test parameters to prove it works to satisfy the regulatory requirements, without any outside influences (other drugs) tainting the results as there were in P3.

As someone has recently posted, I do wonder - whilst gazing through my rose-tinted window - whether there is still enough data out there from P3, P2, ACTIV2 and other previous trials and evidence from other studies around the world to warrant an EUA. After all, the positives from the data (mortality rate and safety profile) really are the only ones which truly matter anyway aren't they?! Plus, Eli Lilly I believe were recently granted an EUA off the back of promising p2 data.

From Synairgen's P3 results, courtesy of Finncap:

The key takeaways from these data are considered to be: -

- A clear trend in favour of SNG001 (p=0.135) over placebo + SOC in the progression to severe disease and death within 35 days of randomisation, with a 31% and 37% relative risk reduction for the ITT and PP populations, respectively.

- An improved safety profile for patients receiving SNG001 + SOC compared with placebo + SOC. There was a c.32% relative reduction in serious treatment-emergent adverse events: 12.3% on SNG001 and 18.2% on placebo. Any treatment-emergent adverse events related to study treatment was 22.3% on SNG001 and 25.7% on placebo.

I also agree that the current board and staff are the right people to take this forward. I have stated my disappointed in how they worded the results RNS previously, but this is their baby, they have the drive and passion for it and imagine how negative it would look if they were seen to be giving up now.

A statement from RM would be welcomed ASAP - even in a general "bear with us, we're on it" capacity would do.

HSD - yes I think it was you!
My post last night probably was a bit OTT, but I do maintain that IMO there was room for more positivity, whilst still maintaining sufficient levels of credibility which as you quite rightly point out is extremely important.

I posted something similar last night JohnBWatson and was told I had no place investing in Pharmaceutical stocks...

No, probably not, but you certainly wouldn't word it in a way that highlights the negatives as much as they did if you had any sense, that's my point.

BeContrarian:
"The RNS was written very poorly, what’s the point in the opening gambit being endpoints not being met when the endpoints are based on invalid or highly compromised data? There is a real sense of ‘the boffins’ having written that RNS, far too wedded to the raw data and not enough interpretation of the data in relation to the commercial interests of the company; that RNS trashed the SP and RM has some explaining to do."

Dammn right - I've said this a few times. They undoubtedly had the results on Friday evening...you would look at the results, have an initial wave of disappointment and then say "right team, we need to spin this as positively as we can for the RNS...there's literally £x BILLIONS riding on this right now. We might have to work on it all weekend and, perish the thought, ring our new PR Guru, Ray Jordan, for advice, but we MUST get it right"

Instead, we get the negative shight we got. Unbelievable and downright galling.

"Synairgen Are Pleased to Report That P3 Results Show That SNG001 Gives a World-Beating 40% Reduction in Mortality with an Excellent Safety Profile"

Not hard is it...

I guess it's too late for some sort of "clarification RNS" to undo some of the damage Monday's one did?..

"The board does but they will have to consult polygon first as I said. Without their backing they will not get anything passed. Hence at 25% they effectively control Synairgen."

Does that mean that they could prevent Synairgen from releasing any more needlessly negative RNS's which devalue the company by 95%. Would be nice...

My thoughts exactly Bannos (just put something very similar on another thread before reading your one).

Thanks for the responses Manifesto and The-Lockie.

Hopefully Ray "Mr PR Machine" Jordan is still on board and can rescue this from the jaws of defeat for Synairgen. If he could pull that off he'd have clients queuing up for miles and I'd knight him myself!!

From beforegolf's message last night:

"someone in the guild has had contact with the company. It's their notes and not verbatim

Company feedback

Sprinter: On the positive side the 30% to 40% reduction in mortality is an excellent signal and on it's own, in the early stages of COVID would have been amongst the best results available."

---

Isn't it a crying shame that this, and the positive safety data, wasn't the main headline of the RNS? Surely they could have put out a really positive sounding RNS based on the "ABSOLUTELY AMAZING WORLD-BEATING 40% REDUCTION IN DEATHS!!" Yes, I know that the primary and secondary endpoints weren't met, but they could have pointed out that these endpoints were effectively rendered null and void anyway due to the way the trial unfolded and the goalposts changing.

I see CTA are now backtracking and saying its not sponsored content!! Well done Brand.

Also, it might be worth looking at the Finncap broker notes from January (it's free to sign up). Their bull case on positive p3 gets to £75. Numis's was £85...

If the unthinkable happens there is still the Asthma and COPD side for the company to carry on with, so I would like to say 40-60p rather than zero.

If P3 is promising it should go way way North of 500p

Great find :-)

"Jordan is a veteran of Pfizer, J&J and Moderna" Could be useful...

This is the context (page 27)

There are a wide range of estimates for the proportion of the population that fall into the
clinically vulnerable category, and based on the increased time to recovery and lower
rates of progression into ICU the cost/benefit of SNG001 could be higher than our base
case assumption. Depending on the estimated vulnerable population and an estimated
5% penetration our annual sales forecast (excluding initial stockpiling) ranges from
£733m to £6.6bn in FY25. The higher level of sales is not uncommon for leading drugs
across large addressable markets. From Synairgen’s perspective, these assumptions
would drive a DCF-based price target of £10 per share to £85 per share, substantially in
excess of the current price, which feeds into our risk/reward investment thesis.

Numis mention £85