Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Chris, that's very interesting and I hope you are right. There has been a notable absence of Prevail either in the CH lift RNS nor any of the interviews or other media reports published since. Neither did Prevail issued anything of a congratulatory nature to promote Hemo on the CH lift on their media outlets.
Maybe Hemo board didn't like the way things seem to have gone over at BriaCell Therapeutics since Prevail's invested $4m as lead investor in its funding round. The subsequent spin out of one third of that company's pre-clinical assets, which was proposed prior to the funding round but only approved after, to a new company BriaPro, has seen BriaCell Therapeutics' share price drop from $6 at the time of the funding round (May 23), $7 just prior to the spin-out (Aug 23) down to around $2.15 (today); though the investors would seem to have received shares in BriaPro - but that's an unlisted reporting issuer in Canada.
Awaiting the Annual Report with interest.
Two weeks until the annual report update.
Last year they advised that IND enabling studies had been initiated on CDX. Nothing further since then on CDX but a brief comment in video output to suggest work was ongoing and Vlad's comment that he was not expecting HEMO CAR-T to be the company's only IND submission - but was he referring to CDX or one or more CBR constructs (several of which were reported, last September, as having already been developed and ready for next stage testing)?
We are now in the Spring 2024 window for the announcement of New York Biofense Commercialization Fund Grants.
Did HEMO make a short submission; was it then invited to make a full submission - we don't know? But HEMO does seem to fit the application parameters - with its innovative CBR technology?
2022 Award Winners - announced 11 April 2022
2023 Award Winners - announced 4 May 2023
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-launches-applications-third-round-new-yorks-40-million-biodefense
Https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1044876/hemogenyx-pharmaceuticals-important-fund-raise-and-car-t-potential-makes-it-one-to-watch-1044876.html
per the Proactive report and UPenn's continued interest/involvement - "all along it has been data driven"
And remember that Hemo had developed a safety switch for SAFE-HEMO-CAR-T but in the end they determined (presumably in the work with UPenn) that due to other scientific advances it was not necessary to have the esafety switch for HEMO CAR-T.
Back to the science:
CD123 CAR-T was previously reported as UPenn's gold standard; here's what happened
https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/142/Supplement%201/217/503095/Cytokine-Release-Syndrome-Results-in-Reduced-AML
Note - one of the authors is Noelle Frey - who will now be the Principal Investigator for HEMO CAR-T Phase I at UPenn.
So - HEMO CAR-T now on pole position for the race to AML solution?
...and over the weekend Vlad's been attending the 2024 AACR Meeting in San Diego - doing his bit to spread the word about HEMO.
https://www.aacr.org/meeting/aacr-annual-meeting-2024/program/
Https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68744775
The mice are gathering!
Here you go, captain
https://twitter.com/HemogenyxPharma/status/1776029505905442879?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
I suggest the forthcoming AGM, for all.
Also as the directors seemingly cba responding to any shareholder emails, this is also fthe opportunity to get a response from the Board - taking our questions to them in person on the day.
I very much still take heart in the fact that Michael, Elina and Ronen are seemingly very much still involved. If I had the chance I would have one of those three on the board of directors in place of PR, the financier who seems to have brought nothing at all to the table (but first let's afford him the opportunity to explain his contribution as NED during the last few years, of Mint (lack of due diligence) and the deep deep discounted placings). As things stand my premise is that the NEDs have let the scientists down, and jeopardised what should have been a company with strength and stability.
Reminder of one of the pieces of news released:
https://www.healthcentral.com/condition/coronavirus/are-covid-nasal-vaccines-on-the-way
HEMO's RNS of 14 Feb - would seem to suggest that they have been testing the intranasal delivery of their CBR for SARS-COVID-2.
Further these links suggest that there is funding/sponsorship available (in particular to smaller innovative companies) for development and trials:
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/next-generation-covid-19-vaccineshttps://www.science.org/content/article/billions-boost-next-generation-covid-19-vaccine-and-treatments
JHFH et al - can we revisit this thread/change that occurred on 5th February, when HEMO came onto SETS and the automated trades started appearing ?
The questions are:
What caused HEMO to be on SETS - is it something that HEMO has to apply for (or consent to) ?
If it is something that HEMO instigated was it done for a specific purpose/shareholder (perhaps US based) ?
Why was it done effective 5 Feb ?
Who/How many use it ? - analysis shows that there were NO Automated trades on 19th February - a US bank holiday ?? (but that was in a period of low automated trade volume).
Am i right that for an automatic trade to settle there must be a matched seller and buyer; so for us these should not be considered buys or sells - someone is selling and someone is buying at a mutually agreed price - but only one side is reported ?
A number of these trades seem to be pairs or triples of odd amounts that sum to a round amount, as though the larger side of the trade order has been matched against several small orders to automate execution. The parts side seems to be reported.
Has someone been selling or is someone potentially using it as a screen to acquire ?
Then we have period of increased selling/buying activity between 28/02/2024 (effectively since knowledge of placing) and 14/03/2024 (48,936,461 shares in that period >3%) - is it related to a buyer(s) or is it Prevail or other seller(s) (remembering that 'significant' shareholders were sounded prior to the placing) ?
The automated trading analysis:
02/02/2024 (RNS advising of the Approval and Issuance of US Conditioning Patent)
05/02/2024 27 trades 2,262,854 shs (none prior to this as HEMO not on SETS)
06/02/2024 9 trades 998,532 shs
07/02/2024 23 trades 1,766,649 shs
08/02/2024 9 trades 487,375 shs
09/02/2024 185 trades 13,252,205 shs (the day of CH lift)
12/02/2024 50 trades 3,545,001 shs
13/02/2024 51 trades 3,114,819 shs
14/02/2024 34 trades 2,745,562 shs
15/02/2024 3 trades 250,000 shs
16/02/2024 17 trades 1,040,512 shs
19/02/2024 No trades US Bank Holiday
20/02/2024 2 trades 250,000 shs
21/02/2024 6 trades 276,860 shs
22/02/2024 7 trades 571,643 shs
23/02/2024 7 trades 747,280 shs
26/02/2024 5 trades 557,822 shs
27/02/2024 9 trades 491,093 shs
28/02/2024 38 trades 3,267,470 shs (the day prior to the Placing RNS)
29/02/2024 41 trades 5,241,175 shs (the day of the Placing RNS)
01/03/2024 19 trades 2,865,697 shs
04/03/2024 39 trades 5,462,654 shs
05/03/2024 28 trades 4,649,318 shs
06/03/2024 41 trades 5,860,000 shs
07/03/2024 27 trades 3,769,913 shs
08/03/2024 34 trades 4,213,075 shs
11/03/2024 34 trades 3,448,282 shs
12/03/2024 32 trades 5,876,485 shs
13/03/2024 19 trades 2,532,392 shs
14/03/2024 9 trades 1,750,000
A la 'Emanuel Lasker' - world chess champion 1894 - 1921, perhaps:
{Playing strength and style
Lasker was considered to have a "psychological" method of play in which he considered the subjective qualities of his opponent, in addition to the objective requirements of his position on the board. Richard Réti published a lengthy analysis of Lasker's play in which he concluded that Lasker deliberately played inferior moves that he knew would make his opponent uncomfortable.[92] W. H. K. Pollock commented, "It is no easy matter to reply correctly to Lasker's bad moves."
Lasker himself denied the claim that he deliberately played bad moves, and most modern writers agree. According to Grandmaster Andrew Soltis and International Master John L. Watson, the features that made his play mysterious to contemporaries now appear regularly in modern play: sacrifices to gain positional advantage; playing the "practical" move rather than trying to find the best move; counterattacking and complicating the game before a disadvantage became serious. Former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik said, "He realized that different types of advantage could be interchangeable: tactical edge could be converted into strategic advantage and vice versa", which mystified contemporaries who were just becoming used to the theories of Steinitz as codified by Siegbert Tarrasch.
Max Euwe opined that the real reason behind Lasker's success was his "exceptional defensive technique" and that "almost all there is to say about defensive chess can be demonstrated by examples from the games of Steinitz and Lasker", the former exemplifying passive defence and the latter an active defence.}