Member Info for Digittt

Except it is, and you're not answering his questions. Try again...should we expect a new Posting ID soon?

Oh I think you're wrong NP. You have been changing /slanting emphasis intentionally which has been said for a while and it's as clear as day, it's just delightful to have it so neatly captured. You've lost any modicum of credibility you might have had - not the virtuous un-biased defender of bulletin board justice that you pretend you are, are you?

Mr-Mojo - nice catch. If that is as you suggest (and I have no reason to doubt at this point) I think NP is suggesting they did what they did for emphasis....but really it was to change /slant the emphasis as you suggested, which is exactly what I've highlighted with their para choices and omissions. I hadn't considered that they might have been manipulating actual quotes.

A good chance we'll get hundreds of posts now from NP trying to shift this down the page. A bit futile really given they get so excited about trawling through older posts on here so we are well aware and can re-highlight. It also would be an awful lot of quotes for them to get deleted, given how many times they've posted it.

Alde - it's a failsafe that we're hoping they don't have to use, sure or at least not in the manner where it's an emergency rip-cord being pulled. They're in discussions with pharma currently as stated, so we don't know exactly where things are. It probably wouldn't be our ideal position, no....failsafe's tend not to be...but it's certainly not the worst position that is articulated and NP keeps pushing the worst for their own motives. NP and you also push hard that £5.6m is needed by January or everything falls over. £5.6m is needed for all of 2026. I think the wording in the prospectus around that is clumsy, but it is clear enough if read properly. I'm not sure if it's a going concern requirement or another equity raise rules requirement that is making them quote things the way they are, but I'm fine with what it means and that includes cover for corp costs and a little on other R&D.

As for NP attacking the funding and JHFH continually - everyone on this site has their personality quirks, but continually attacking JHFH and trying to undermine the hard work Haywain and he did that started this SP rise is ridiculous. I'm not saying all LTH's motives are pure (I am aware of how that equity raise went and I know at least one revealed true colours), but the vast majority are pushing hard and willing hard for this to be a success and to help the company. Do I doubt that we will find the money we need in some form for January...no. Might it hurt more than I'd want...maybe. Are we in the decent position we are because of help from JHFH / Haywain...absolutely. Where do you think your TR1 (and likely other TR1's) come from?

And to be clear, that £5.6m funding includes some spend elsewhere in the business including corp overheads. Per the prospectus.

And the directors are reasonably certain of a failsafe source of funding frombig pharma based on the results of the trial so far. One more time NP

Again, no they're not. They had new equity coming in, a prospectus which is a marketing document was required. Directors expose themselves to personal liability if they take someone's money and shortly thereafter the business is out of cash and they never highlighted there may be/is an additional cash need that hasn't been funded yet. All prospectuses have a risk factors section to highlight risks...of all kinds. This is to protect the directors so they can say the investor was aware. But you do your attempts at trying to skew the thought process. As I said, nothing is guaranteed, but the directors are reasonably certain. If they said they were certain, they'd open themselves up to personal liability again. So stop being the long play broken record. You will know all of the above and that is why your approach is obvious and not going to work.

NP....keep trying. It is a failsafe....reasonable certainty is all directors will be able to say, and they wouldn't have said it if they weren't. There are no guarantees of course...but you're trying to dress up total collapse of the company as the likely result. It is not...but you will keep trying and keep pretending and keep notnotposting.

If you can let me know your schedule for repeat posting that will help. Is it every 3 or 4 hours?

Yes NP...fine to paste that, but you are trying to hide away that the Directors have a level of comfort that there is a failsafe...and they are also in conversations with Big Pharma already as confirmed in the interview. So stop trying to pretend you're being virtuous...your motives are clear.

Your repeat posting of the same while intentionally omitting the directors views highlights your motives here. You have no other reason to repeat that multiple times a day like you do...you can act indignant and lie as if you had one, but you will get called out.

Definitely doesn't sound like the share for you Alde...toodles.

Oh yes....NP...I can also repeat post. Here's also relevant info from the prospectus that you intentionally leave off as you're trying to sow panic. Are you going to get this post deleted?

"In circumstances where insufficient funding were to be forthcoming to enable the Company to implement its business plan through 2026, the Directors would use all endeavours to sell an interest in the development of HG-CT-1, as well as its other product candidates. The Directors are reasonably confident that they would be able to do so based on the data received to date in the Phase 1 trial of HG-CT-1 and discussions with a large pharmaceutical company"

NP....keep trying. It is a failsafe....reasonable certainty is all directors will be able to say, and they wouldn't have said it if they weren't. There are no guarantees of course...but you're trying to dress up total collapse of the company as the likely result. It is not...but you will keep trying and keep pretending and keep notnotposting.

Yes NP...fine to paste that, but you are trying to hide away that the Directors have a level of comfort that there is a failsafe...and they are also in conversations with Big Pharma already as confirmed in the interview. So stop trying to pretend you're being virtuous...your motives are clear.

Oh yes....NP...Here's also relevant info from the prospectus that you intentionally leave off as you're trying to sow panic. Are you going to get this post deleted?

"In circumstances where insufficient funding were to be forthcoming to enable the Company to implement its business plan through 2026, the Directors would use all endeavours to sell an interest in the development of HG-CT-1, as well as its other product candidates. The Directors are reasonably confident that they would be able to do so based on the data received to date in the Phase 1 trial of HG-CT-1 and discussions with a large pharmaceutical company"

Welcome back, and appreciate the honesty. The ramp is in hyping an RNS. I don’t disagree with you on where the price ought to be from my perspective, and you know me from elsewhere so will hopefully understand my initial scepticism.

Vive…what are your other accounts? First time poster who goes straight for a ramp…yet who is very familiar with this place. Hmmm…🤨

ViveLaGreenBox

Agreed that MDA would likely be presenting if it was being presented. Although I did see another (non-late breaking abstract) session on FLT3 /CDX that left me wondering (more hoping) if Vlad may have a brief speaking contribution, but suspect that would have been announced. As for your made up malarkey on what folks would do if we were suddenly (and unexpectedly at this stage given the program is public)at ASH, I'd let SP behavior do the talking. I'd also say it's quite possible with the panic that you keep trying to sow (under the pretense of being balanced) some shareholders might use a jump in SP to get out...I'd look more at you as to the cause for that rather than others. If we are at ASH it undoubtedly would be good for the company - Vlad had been talking about ASH from early in the year.

That result doesn't come up on anyone else's google. Isn't on LinkedIn as far as I saw...isn't on the company website. I of course would love for us to present there, but the indications on the program are that we aren't. What does come up in the google search is the 2020 presentation...nothing more recent as best as I can tell. Best guess is more artificial stupidity rather than intelligence, but would happily be proven wrong (and would likely make an offer to buy the PC you googled that off).

Did you perhaps use AI mode where it gets confused? There is no result like that except from a confused AI.