Member Info for Digittt

Well, look, I like the Christmas pumpky best when I'm sayin' grace. When you say grace, you can say it to grown-up pumpky, or teenage pumpky, or bearded pumpky, or whoever you want.

Sorry, no idea why Talladega Nights popped into my head.

The info in the patent on CBR is now public , so perhaps there is more he can say. Or am I wrong and the patent info was always public?

It would be good to hear there's progress.

Stu, again with your approach, because they can't offer a timeline you rush to it must be long (and for good measure they need a raise). The simple answer would be they can't offer a timeline as it's dependent on some performance by 3rd parties (at least labs - maybe independent testing again, but we don't actually know that). We have also seen the FDA use up their time to respond. That is a much more reasonable take, than your it's long.

I personally would now not be surprised if it takes another 2-3 months or so but that's based on our prior experience with the independent testing process and the potential reaction speed of the FDA.

You only state facts...that's the most blatant and inaccurate post I've ever seen. You state what you say are your opinions which are mostly tied to the lowest common eeyore denominator on some of the facts...intentionally picked by you to troll and create concern.

Stu, again you are true to form. Yes it’s not lifted. But…in all likelihood what was agreed with the FDA was the plan from July where Vlad indicated hemo knew what to do. The process to agree that with them though has just played out with some testing / validation and I assume the FDA using up their 30 days to respond in each instance. Vlad indicates we are moving through the plan as expeditiously as possible and your response is ooh it’s going to take long and there will be a raise. We don’t have a clear idea on how long but a more sensible take will be we are performing the plan from July and perhaps we have to go through the independent testing again.

Yep, let’s see how this goes. Hoo Ray.

Stu...again, you try. Tacit implication based on feedback from the company. A lot more valid than your claim that the non-appearance of the big guys chasing CBR means it's nothing. So yes, I will take the implication from the DOD conversations and funding source over your lack of anything.

Stu, you're a child. Everything DOD related is from the company...if you're choosing to pretend that you believe that the company is making everything up around CBR, then you certainly wouldn't be here for for CAR-T, as you'd have no faith in the company. You will well be aware I have not said CBR is a guaranteed success...it's a moonshot that could absolutely fail. But what we know so far is suggesting it's still in play. I will absolutely take the tacit implications from what the company says about their DOD conversations to highlight what a 3rd party has seen in the potential. I will also absolutely call your conceited self out when you continue to be a twit.

Stu, the approach from the DOD was specifically because CBR was a moonshot that had immense potential. The potential source of the funding from them (as I heard the conversation) is part of a budget allocated for "moonshots". That being said, the DOD processes for funding are going to be very slow...but (again based on my understanding) would likely be non-dilutive and substantial and is why we're pursuing that route. They also could say no to the funding, but we haven't heard anything to suggest that is the case. So I'll take the DOD's view so far that this is a potential microsoft of viral treatments over yours, thanks.

Stu…uhh…no. It just means CBR isn’t mature enough yet. Yes, it could fall over before it matures but in no way is this a sign that CBR doesn’t work. It’s just going to take time and money to develop.

No Stu dramas or Nostradamus...?

Stu...and so what? Seem to recall you trying to make big deals about wording that was or wasn't used in the company releases the last time you were in the share. Anyhoo....

MrI...we had the AGM not long ago where the company did some updating. I could give myself many reasons to the negative why an update now, if it comes, could actually be obfuscation and PR spin to distract from things the business may be struggling with (CAR-T? - but who knows). I'm not being negative, I'm just keeping my mind open. I struggle to form a view that there would be any major progress on CBR or CDX since the AGM - maybe something on the CBR patents could be due but not sure how helpful that is, maybe a CDX partner out of the blue, but given the pace on it before, I doubt that. Zak Mir knows nothing in my mind, Dave Burton is just a hype mouth-piece (refer prior thought that maybe it's obfuscation). About the only relevant point you've made in my mind relates to Stu... I do agree there. When Disco Stu has nothing better to do other than post on Hemo that he's bought in, then it doesn't matter what he sprouts or ill moods he tries to forment, he's working his trade. In the short term what moves the needle in my mind is news on CAR-T...and I doubt that would be recorded in an interview this week for only being shared next week.

MrI...Over a matter of a day you have seeded the random point that the tweet Vlad reposted is a sign (we should all take our shoes off and hold them above our heads - at least that was in a ground-breaking comedy)...then over the next handful of posts you gradually shift your position to stating your random guess as fact. I'm an optimistic LTH, but you continually do this, and then call out others...and that's why I'll keep pinging you despite the fact that we're both optimistic LTH's.

My bets are on for MrI being back in his morose and unhappy phase on Weds / Thurs with Vlad clearly having committed to an RNS by reposting a rampy TMS tweet and then failing to deliver on the RNS. Perhaps by midday Thurs he will be demanding a new CEO...and trashing the share. By the following Monday he will have regathered his thoughts and be a big fan again.

Stu / HH - neither of you know the answer, so stop claiming more insight. Vlad's comment on that before getting the detailed FDA letter was that he didn't believe it was going to be necessary given what they were changing, but that was just his view and he didn't know. I take the CEO on face value on this and we haven't heard a scooby to suggest otherwise. Dare I suggest we may even only hear whether it's required in the next response from the FDA...hopefully not, I'd rather we are actively engaged with them on the solution, so know there asks, but we don't know at the moment.

On CDX - I maintain my view - we have limited capital. Don't spend a penny on it until we have spare dosh...unless it's bringing in a partner to carry the cost, or helping it being sold.

On CBR - I'll balls this explanation up a bit, but from what I remember, in vivo vs vitro...the step to vivo may have required HEMO having access to animals...I know there was a comment from Vlad that that had recently been resolved (he named the university / lab or something like that that had given them access)...but there's also something inconsistent in my memory as the horrible viruses they are testing against are all in secure / special clearance labs, so I assume they'd already have the access to animals. Unless of course they're testing with simpler viruses in vivo first...that may make sense based on the bits I remember.

Nice...and yes, a helpful reminder that many on here / ADVFN suffer from PTBD.

JHFH - I've been burnt too many times by the treacle nature of bureaucracy. My thought had been that the FDA had 30 days to respond to the initial submission, but once you get into interactive resolution of issues I assumed we enter into more vague definitions of timelines. If you're saying the FDA have to respond in 30 days to everything (?), then that is great and no need for Vlad to badger or send them an angry super-mouse in the post.

JHFH - it's all getting a little fuzzy now, but I seem to recall customs was both ways...so maybe 6 weeks there not 3. I agree Vlad and the team will be pushing hard (again, just a friendly reminder of how lucky we were with the equity raise early in the year...would hate to have that distraction now). The biggest unknown to me is how responsive the FDA will be. On the plus side, the US isn't like Europe and doesn't shut down for the summer (and I think US schools are even back this week...or maybe it's next)...but I'm personally scarred from bureaucratically slow processes in my (unrelated) field of work. I have plenty of experience with many local / foreign government agencies and multilaterals. There's only a handful of times in my life I've seen these processes move as quick as I would have liked...one involved me sitting on the phone with HMRC almost permanently for a few days to get an accelerated COP10 letter. The other involved pee'ing off a French minister who was on a holiday. There have been plenty of instances where nothing worked. I think the only tool Vlad will have is the first...ie badgering the FDA and getting them to respond. I'm hoping that works or isn't even necessary, but it's the unknown around that that causes me to think worst case October.

JHFH - that's very interesting - using ChatGPT to identify when AI was used - let's hope it stays honest!

Paraphrasing what I thought I heard last month (in absence of being technical, so forgive me) was when they were in the period when they had some awareness of the nature of the issue from the FDA, but were still guessing specifics, they set the AI to work. It quickly narrowed things down to 3 potential nucleotides that could be the cause of inefficient splicing / impurities... manual testing then narrowed things down to 1. The reference was made that without AI it would have taken a heckuva lot longer to identify that specific nucleotide that might be a concern (I think the reference was to the nucleotide, but I might have mucked that up).

HH - Vlad did say it was a simple fix but that was after mentioning how AI helped speed up identifying the issue - so perhaps there's a nuance in there somewhere. My personal view now is late September / October, but hope for it to be sooner. I think you're missing the time taken to move biological specimens around the globe, some more time to package the response - and also I'm factoring in an assumption of a bureaucratically slow pace of work from the FDA. At least the FDA peeps will be in the offices and we're not stuck waiting for agreement between Reps / Dems on the next spending bill.