Member Info for Hulver

? a condition precedent - (satisfied) ?

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.}

I should have also pointed out:

2022 awardees announced 11 April.

2023 awardees announced 4 May.

and CBR has been being tested in a government lab.

Remember this (that we hoped would be applied for last year)?

https://esd.ny.gov/biodefensefund#overview

Well, round 3 applications are in (as it is now closed) and applications in excess of $2m (max $4m) require matched fund raise by the company.

Check out one of last year's recipients of $4m; doing similar to Hemo but different tech.

Hemo latest fund raise $4m plus 5% expenses?? Again though, we said the last year when a similar raise was announced.

Possibly a big difference this year is - Hemo are now clinical.

Annual Report is due by Tuesday 30th April (and historically issued on the last trading day of April) - so hopefully something before then.

So does the question become: are people associated with IG and other brokers complicit in this? Have sometimes thought, that here, it's been what it would be like trying to win at cards when your opponent can see your, or indeed everyone else's, hand.

Not really sure why short selling is permitted - cannot see any moral benefit from it in any company share, it's sole purpose seems to be to satisfy "investors'" greed - I thought there was a move to stop it years ago (or was that just in US?)

Well, well, well - was that the last of the IG shorts closing?

During this week the number of accountholders with short positions dropped firstly from 8% (or maybe even as high as 12% at one point last week) down to just 2% of accountholders for the last couple of days and most of today - but now it's showing 0%.

JHFH any thoughts - as you've been follow this aspect quite closely.

Obviously didn't pass the Turing Test.

Fund raise at Jan 2023 seemed to follow a similar pattern to last week, certain investors forewarned it seems.

Still in here, but wondering what last week means for CBR funding.

Logically it says there's 'no chance' of any funding, so is the Bait Biotechnology spin out that shareholders were not informed of no longer on the cards, or is it still in progress - and if so is it going to be another theft of assets not at fair value - I hope not. I hope we get some news on CBR's funding soon as several CBR constructs were notified as ready for further testing (in September) - pending funding. Until there's authentic corporate governance unfortunately I cannot see anyone dealing with the company. At this point I'd rather the board of directors was replaced in its entirety by the younger scientists - Elina, Michael and Ronen. The board (other than Vlad) would appear to have let them down here - at the GAM Marc alluded to the fact that there was strong competition for scientist and they were conscious of the need to retain quality staff - I hope last week doe not lead to anyone leaving - other than teh non-execs.

If there might be a positive, is it this? - there has been a continued reference to accelerating AML CAR-T trials so may that allude to the addition of further hospitals to the trials, so we have more than one trial happening 'in parallel' rather than 'in series'. That could speed up a conclusion to P1.

Here's hoping for some positive news on Bait Biotechnology and CBR funding.

If a leak, at Hemo or Prevail?

Something similar seemed to happen to Briacell Therapeutics SP (also has Prevail) - it's been on a long slide

So SP Angel did the placing - does that suggest that there is a broker analysis to be issued now. That too was promised at the AGM and would happen 'at the appropriate time'.

Yes, well at the last AGM a certain Peter Redmond said that would be done; he also said that everyone's interests are aligned here. Finding that hard to believe now - his time is surely up.

That web page has been there since around September time.

However, in the Boston presentation he clearly stated that CBR is being spun out into a new subsidiary Bait Biotechnology, so maybe Prevail are still working on that and the significant funding required for CBR; and this was placing was necessary to maintain progress on HEMO-CAR-T in the meantime.

'new and existing' - is this actually through Prevail introducing some new partners?

And what about CBR and Bait Biotechnology spin out - this RNS makes no mention of that or Prevail, yet several constructs were ready for lab testing in September. The last fund raise provided some funding for modest work on that - but that's all. Is something else going on too?

Some thoughts:

We can all surmise (and do) but the only narrative that should matter is that issued by the company.

Just a reminder - the latest narrative (not that long ago) was that the company looks forward to accelerating HEMO CAR-T clinical trial. The other latest narratives confirmed progress as expected to various points is now complete. I think the CBR updates were released solely to tidy things up as they contained mostly information that had already got into public domain without RNS (I agree that's very poor).

With strangely no mention of Prevail by Hemo nor any mention of HEMO's CH lift from Prevail since the CH lift it seems possible that the Company and Prevail have parted ways - but then wouldn't that need to be RNS'd before now? There would certainly be a cost to it, and 11m unwanted shares hanging around from the placing too. If that is the case perhaps Prevail could not manage to drum up the required level of financing, especially now that several CBR constructs are also ready for further testing too. But that would then beg questions about the quality of foresight and due diligence undertaken by the Hemo board and the warranties given by Prevail for the CRO engagement. If there is another party, presumably they do not want Prevail involved, but if that's the case then presumably the funding deal is better than what Prevail could offer, which one would think would be better than a Peterhouse fund raise. We will see in due time.

In my view, it's naive and too simple to think that any big pharma will have a say in Vlad's decision, that would seem to go against what we know of his character so far - the manner of the company's development and next growth stage remains his choice, and I suggest he will do what is morally right for medicinal progress and getting these products (and teh broader pipeline) into clinical trials.

What I really hope is that we do not find that the non-executive directors and advisors (especially those with financing experience) have been asleep at the wheel and let the scientists down here, by not having funding ready, or an assessment of risks or a plan b, c etc. If they have let the scientists down then I hope this year that others will join in a concerted effort to seek a change of certain non-execs at the next AGM.

There are AML sufferers on a death sentence that need this chance, as by the time the next clinical trial chance comes along they won't be here.

Finally - there's been worse days. Sunshine follows rain.

I wonder will Vlad be in London for this, this week.

https://cartcr-europe.com/whats-on/expert-speakers/

(For anyone else keeping an eye on CARM, out of UPenn, they are presenting.)