Member Info for Haywain

I would think aswell that Hemo's formulation is specific to inhalation/ mucosal membrane delivery - Unsure it would be suited for Sub-cutaneous route of administration that would be required for vaccine stabilization.

The short answer is it depends: For a patent to be granted, the stabilization method must be novel, meaning it has not been previously disclosed in the public domain. It also must be non-obvious, indicating that it represents a significant advancement over existing knowledge - As I am aware that there are already existing methods for the stabilisation of mRNA I am not sure of the likelyhood of Hemo's method being novel - personally I would doubt it as the vast amount of ongoing research in mRNA stabilization both in academic institutions and the pharmaceutical industry sets a high bar for novelty. Given the competitive landscape, any new method would need to clearly differentiate itself from previously known methods. But I am not a patent attorney- better off asking Mrs Sandler! Their tea time discussions must be intense.

Just a thought- given the innovative approach outlined for targeting diseases through mRNA constructs extending this technology to address lung cancer presents a compelling case. Lung cancer, as one of the most common and lethal cancers worldwide, represents a critical area where novel, targeted therapies could significantly impact patient outcomes.

The method developed by Hemo to stabilize mRNA encoding the chimeric bait receptor (CBR) using a combination of solvent and synthetic polymer for delivery specifically to pneumocytes lays a solid foundation. This delivery mechanism has already shown promise in informing macrophages to respond to viral infections.

Lung cancer cells express specific markers that can be exploited for targeted therapy. By raising the CBR to recognize these lung cancer markers, the same strategy used for viruses could be adapted to target and destroy cancer cells. This specificity could lead to highly effective treatments with reduced side effects compared to conventional chemotherapy and radiation, which damage healthy cells alongside cancerous ones.

Aerosol delivery of the engineered mRNA directly to the lungs ensures that the therapeutic action is localized, potentially increasing efficacy and reducing systemic side effects. This is particularly relevant for lung cancer, where targeted delivery can directly address tumor cells within the respiratory system.

By informing macrophages and potentially other immune cells about cancer markers, the technology not only targets cancer cells directly but also mobilizes the body's immune system against the tumor. This dual approach harnesses the body's natural defense mechanisms, offering a more holistic treatment strategy.

Moving beyond traditional treatments to a more precise, immune system-based approach represents the cutting edge of cancer therapy. It aligns with the growing trend towards personalized medicine, where treatments are tailored to the individual's specific disease markers.

Anyway – just a thought – indeed this platform could be extended to many forms of cancer

For the significance of these findings from Hemo and its potential for good to humanity as a whole with people suffering from untreatable brain conditions and untreatable cancers - I wish I could take the funding/financing piece away from this and let them get on with the fantastic science that the Hemo team are delivering with a CAR-Te blanche.

JHFH - I reached out on Twitter

Obviously not too many have found it to this board. That will change though

I am sure the stabilisation of RNA through use of polymers/encapsulation/hydrogels/lipid nano particles has been done before - Maybe Vlads method is unique? Its an issue with RNA as it is inherently unstable due to it being single stranded and the ubiquitous presence of RNAases.

That is what I was hinting at earlier JHFH - Becuase of how they have developed the delivery method it is more suited to respiratory viruses which makes me think that Hemo are going after governmental funding initially for CBR all viruses that cause pandemics or would be suitable for biologic warfare associated pandemics are airborne and a lung endothelial cell mode of cellular entry which seems to align with what Hemo are developing and focusing on first . Which if this theory is correct could provide the funding they need to develop this into a platform to target other viruses. For me if this works for one virus in -vivo then there is no reason it shoudln't work for all.

Makes me wonder is the next RNS CBR is effective against COVID in-vivo : Animal studies have been going on for some time now - If CBR effective in-vivo ie in animals then due to how it works it will be effective in humans - That would be nice wouldnt it ?

Ha ha - more likely nasal spray but yes in theory to crop spray

And more importantly for share holders - how deep are their pockets??

"Very good Hemo delivery method sorted - now start listing the viruses that this method is affective against in vivo one by one :This has a ministry of defence/ DARPA feel to it as this delivery method is for airborne or potentially airborne viruses ie those most suited to cause pandemics and or be used in biological warfare. One would imagine that systemic modes of delivery would be selected from CBR's for the likes of Denge, Zicka as they are transfered through the bite of infected Aedes mosquitoes - So who has asked them to develop a mode of delivery specific to pandemics?"

Very good Hemo delivery method sorted - now start listing the viruses that this method is affective against in vivo one by one :This has a ministry of defence/ DARPA feel to it as this delivery method is for airborne or potentially airborne viruses ie those most suited to cause pandemics and or be used in biological warfare. One would imagine that systemic modes of delivery would be selected from CBR's for the likes of Denge, Zicka as they are transfered through the bite of infected Aedes mosquitoes - So who has asked them to develop a mode of delivery specific to pandemics?

No Mr India, I havn't seen this sort of reaction before - nothing wrong from the regulatory side - no cause for concern : it is "great news" that CAR-T can move forward into the clinic. just the vagaries of the market unfortunately which I can not explain other than the financial route has not been explained which leaves the question how is Hemo going to pay for it - thats the sort of question that the shorters love - so it will need to be addressed to make a recovery.

I think the answer to that is that it depends on your time frames - If you are happy to sit and wait for the full unfolding then I think the shareprice is undervaluing the CAR-T alone ie not including the other development programs so in the fullness of time this should rebound in my opinion.

Many thanks RG33 - message received

Reg - I am not saying it isn't possible but not following breadcrumbs to AZ yet as they are layed out by the thread. Wuxi have many customers because their main business is contract manufacturing and they are bloody good at it. I can think of several companies that are possibilities (and AZ is included) but I wouldn't draw any conclusions from the Wuxi/China link personally but happy to be proven wrong.

Not sure I am following this thread of thought regvarny - Autolus have several CAR-T candidates across multiple indications in various stages of development and the capability to produce at clinical and commercial scale - BioNTech have strategically aligned with them on two early stage programs (1* phase 1 and 1 clincal trail application pending). I don't see the link. I also don't see how hemo are going after the Chinese market - the only link they have to China is that they employ the services of a Chinese contract manufacturer Wuxi biologics to manufacture the lentiviral vector. So I am not following the bread crumbs that lead you to a tie in with AZ

Yes agree and I did earlier in the week - "Pumpkin blocked and all of the Cucurbitaceae family for good measure - that includes all gourds, squashes and melons... you know who you are!"

Ha ha - Very flattering but don't get carried away - I am just a scientist with industry experience and an interest in haem/onc

Ha ha - Very flattering but don't get carried away - I am just a scientist with industry experience and an interest in haem/onc