Member Info for Bmhltd

This linear effect, translated and is responsible for the downstream immune activation we are seeing, which also removes the t-cell exhaustion and removes the ability of blasts to hide In the marrow. It turns an immunosuppresive TME into a immuno-activated TME.

There is plenty of evidence of this. The latest data on dose-dependency really brings that point home and hugely increases confidence that our MOA is working exactly as designed.

The only question now is how safe can we make it.

They will also be taking all efficacy endpoints and downstream mechanisms into account to ensure we don’t dilute the effects that are neccessary for getting maximum benefit…

There are dose-dependent efficacy slides in the latest ESMO presentation.

The mechanism is clever 1 blockade and the drug achieves this. The PD and PK data now show a strong statistically significant effect of target engagement directly corresponding with ORR’s and CR’s.

I think I hear what you are saying Luck.

That if 1 is selected it may not have as greater benefit on all endpoints and benefits as 3.

I think they will know quite early on the response rates ORR which should translate into the CR / CReq and should translate to OS. On the other meaningful to patient endpoints such as transfusion independence you would expect a direct effect on those too.

But for the registrational trial we have to pick one dose and that will boil down to seeing earlier benefits such as responses, both ORR then leading to CR/CReq, and overall survival perhaps later than the decision has been made on selecting dose but should form a good basis for correct selection.

If they are the same in efficacy it would likely boil down to the fewest SAE’s / TRAE’s of which there will be plenty to stratify who was seeing slightly better safety.

Not sure if that helps much. But I tried my best…

Sorry that was replying to Luckenbach

Morning Wolf.

I think where we are at is that there was very little data with 1mg/kg and we have already shown from previous data that 3mg/kg gets us the efficacy we need, while minimising the treatment related adverse events (TRAE’s). The only question remaining being- is 1mg/kg enough for the necessary efficacy and even better safety (TRAE’s).

The Optimus initiative, as I see it, is to balance efficacy with the most safe dose.

I’ve had the thought that maybe the FDA have been a bit protectionist toward their own industry and throwing curve balls our way, but at the end of the day we don’t have that much data, particularly in the front line with 1mg/kg ( I believe it is only one patient), it is only 40 extra patients, and we will then get a strong readout with randomised data earlier, plus a chance to resize at that point to increase our chances of success for the consequent AA readout and then a further resizing if required prior to the full OS readout.

I think this actually adds a layer of potential options for either funding up to that point ( more manageable without partnering) or a smaller upfront payment in a deal making scenario that can be relatively modest, and further solid milestone payments as we reduce risk and increase confidence further.

With regard to the 1mg versus 3 mg ; it would leave out (or add an extra arm) the placebo effect of AZA and no Bex (which is the control group) meaning a larger trial, more patients and more costs (I may have misunderstood what you were saying)

The difference between the groups or AZA versus AZA plus Bex would have a more smaller effect between those 2 groups, reducing likelihood of a statistically significant improvement of adding Bex.

If that makes sense.

Remind us of one thing you have posted of relevance to the company in the last 12 months Webb?

I look forward to it….

Boy these trolls sure like to activate their alternative accounts when one is under threat…

I wouldn’t waste your time with responding Wolfi.

Some know only too well how to drag the conversation into where they want it, and believe me, it’s not worth the effort.

I shall try better to heed my own advice.

Not entirely sure some are as invested as they say they are here, as they seem to relish those that try and bury those who post anything meaningful, a peculiar trait.

Whether that’s out of being a useful (you know what), or being a fraud is up for debate.

Perhaps some would do well to get their stimulative conversations in the real world rather than on a bulletin board…

Well done on reporting my post and having it removed- coward.

And if you can’t handle the heat (don’t provoke and) get out of the kitchen.

Your crying and pearl clutching is becoming pathetic and extremely boring...

The amount of BS being disseminated on the Inderes chat forum is off the chart.

I think we are getting close and there are some crafty people at work trying to relinquish the Finnish private investors of their stock.

Such a disingenuous bunch of undesirables. Hence my strong take on suspected trolls on here. It is the epitome of greed and self interest.

My views only…

Goal 3- perhaps particularly relevant to Faron- Accelerate innovation and deployment of biotech and dual-use technologies.

The conference emphasises the need to speed up the pace of biotech innovation, especially dual-use capabilities (both civilian and military) such as biosensors, wearable health tech, trauma care, human enhancement and early detection systems. 

For example, NATO’s “Emerging and Disruptive Technologies” agenda highlights how new technologies should be adopted faster by the Alliance.

Perhaps bodes well for Traumakine Development which recently received grant funding.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_238761.htm

Example of how a bidding war plays out, as Novo up’s the offer over Pfizer’s recent bid for Metsera, a biotech in the GLP-1 space.

Goes to show how M&A can escalate when target biotechs for sought after pipeline desires / synergies of major pharma co’s merge.

Could rattle a few cages, on here.

Feels as though on this board and others a wave of negativity is being launched as free supply of stocks runs low.

This is only my opinion and always consider the significant risks to investing…

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/novo-nordisk-makes-unsolicited-offer-metsera-2025-10-30/

Perhaps follow your own advice you gave below “Patty” … :

Newbies this site17 Sep 2024 15:32

Beware this is not a site that people know anything.

I stumbled on this site and after reading a ramper foolishly invested at76p, even more foolish I averaged down think it can’t get any worse or drop lower it has.

I’m now out by 38 k. Which I can’t afford and feel so dumb.

Justa caution tale of this site plus Aim

Yep, also highlighted by Stifel yesterday among their top 5 European based biotechs.

Closed yesterday on the Nas at 2.04 gbp equivalent, would suggest we have some catching up to do….

There are blatant clowns on here that have nothing better to do, no financial interests in the company, and can polarise you to only talk about the positives to try and act as a balance to the drivel that gets spouted continuously, without any merit whatsoever; I would suggest that should be the metric for how we ascertain who is here to bicker and who is here to share company relevant, logical ideas for where the company is at, in any given moment.

On overall survival, it is even more unlikely that someone will be reported as alive when they’re dead, if things get that sloppy we are wasting our time with clinical trials altogether. Again, clinical trials have strong protocols, data monitoring committees etc to prevent such errors in data handling; these trials are largely being run at some of the most comprehensive cancer centres on the planet with KOL’s happy to opine for the company and in their own time the promising results and benefits over other drugs prior to them failing their own pivotal trials eg Verona, having administered and seen first hand the patients that are undergoing treatment with Bex.

I agree on some of the point you raise on Juho being better out front, but I don’t think it’s because he is particularly slippery, I believe he is confident and a person you would like to do business with. Marku on the other hand came across as a bit unlikeable, to me at least, but probably genuine and uncomfortable with having to sometimes bend the truth to keep the show on the road while also being frustrated at having great data but the lack of funds to develop it further and faster.

I strongly believe we have a good shot at a very decent deal here, and those basing their assumptions solely on share price action, as that is about the only argument I have heard here for being negative on the business case, could find themselves surprised, as it wouldn’t be the first time a stock can do 10-20x in short order, based on deal making and how quickly rerating of stocks can happen when leaks / insider trading gets more apparent as deal sizes firm up behind the scenes, and the discrepancy becomes crystal / a deal is practically done..

The FDA have clearly seen a lot they like in Bexmarilimab given they have granted Fast Track designation, Project Front Runner, Orphan Drug Designation, a

registrational trial protocol with an Accelerated Approval pathway and even an adaptive trial design allowing for resizing at 2 different time points to further improve the likelihood of approval’s. That says a lot about Bexmarilimab and validated the potential they see here, offering much to a could be drug developer looking to acquire assets in this field.

Blood cancers are rightly in a league of their own and are highly coveted / prestige areas of focus for major pharma companies given the dire unmet need and devastating nature of the disease with little improved options over decades.

Faron, if successful has a moat now secured until 2040 with its IP estate, with Bex being none-toxic which is absolutely key given the underlying disease characteristics, and has played a key role in the success of ICI’s as a drug class.

If you want a reasonable reply from me, it’s about being respectful, and if you offer nothing and just spout nonsense then criticise, without anything of substance then I simply haven’t the time for the BS tbh.

WoodWood,

The first time we had a dialogue, you came at me with a bit of attitude regarding ChatGPT, thinking you were smart, which would obviously get my back up as I’m defending my investment daily from actual trolls that have no interest in the company and have nothing to offer in any respects with regard to analysis, research, relative valuation benchmarks in deal making scenarios, and are outright dismissive of the companies credentials and precedent transactions in the exact same field- with even similar, earlier and / or weaker data that were acquired for billions of USD.

I have said on numerous occasions this doesn’t guarantee a transaction will be as big as similar precedent’s, or whether they are definitively going to materialise, but I have highlighted some reasonable comparators and highlighted the strengths of the companies data with logical conclusions and laid out sensible scenarios. I too have highlighted the risks to the investment case and have opined on numerous occasions the weakness of any ChatGPT research I have put out when it’s wrong.

I also believe ChatGPT to be a very valuable tool, that needs close monitoring for errors and hallucinations. For me it’s a great time saver, and should not be dismissed as it is exceptional in some departments and weaker in others. With chatGPT’s new features such as ‘projects’- it is as smart as you spend the time making it.

With regard to your point on data collection, you raise a modestly viable point, in that it can be busy on wards and data recording can be mishandled, but you could argue that for any trial and this is none Faron specific, so if you feel that way then why bother investing in anything with clinical trials eg biotech and / or pharma? Which begs the question of raising the point in the first instance.

To say that you are “maybe a little clued up on how little confidence you (I) should have” doesn’t hold water and makes you sound a bit of a plank tbh. Further, we are talking here about pretty standard reporting procedures on very sick patients who are unlikely to receive CR’s and ORR’s without strict reporting protocols being tightly adhered to by data monitoring committees overseeing reporting-even more strictly so, now we are preparing to enter our next stage of development, that being the registrational trial; so we could easily argue we are beyond the ‘Wild West’ now and with regard to data recording and collection, that side should actually improve, as is the nature and more stringent practices / protocols of pivotal trial data collection and handling.

Please tell us more on the trials and data collection definitely not being perfect….?

Also ask your dad to opine on the points I asked you?

This should be funny…

Supply is drying up, don’t you know, it’s drying up…!!!!

https://youtu.be/0HtyF0jux2Q?si=JxyAGztYSJzdF_xb

🕺🏻🪩

🤣🤣🤣

€2.30 on the Nas touched, the LSE lags again, perhaps as the accumulator takes their final positioning before a proper breakout?

If it holds, I look forward to Mr Webb getting in touch to thank me for my sterling work on propelling the share price today, given I’ve been responsible for all the falls of later…

But then, I won’t hold my breath…

For the first time I have seen the bid is stacked while the ask is very thin, furthermore the largest order on the bid side is at the highest value displayed whereas until recently it was far below drawing price down. A process known as layering…

While there can always be fudging of the book, it suggests to me, supply is running low.