Member Info for Hulver

Some things to take a closer look at in the numbers but - the very last paragraph of accounts 'subsequent events note' states:

"The Company has entered into a preliminary agreement with a service provider that it is anticipated will project manage and supervise the running of Phase I clinical trials for its HEMO-CAR-T cell therapy subject to negotiation of a Master Services Agreement."

Is that the new information disclosure?

HH

I just think that if they are expanding and new activities/collaborations are going to be happening then I'd be very happy to see an additional full-time executive board member, particularly one on the US side where the core business is developing. That would ease some of the pressure off Vlad, who seems to have to be driving this on his own; although I think more and more that the principal scientists are starting take leadership of the scientific developments side now.

We have (or I think we still have) a board observer in Dr Alan Walts but my interpretation is that some other investing or collaborating party insisted on his involvement at that time (I may be totally wrong there; and indeed can we be certain that he is still in situ). His LinkedIn page suggests that he is; but there is nothing to evidence it.

In any case all of the other board members either have significant other employment interests outside of Hemo; if Hemo is to stand alone then it needs appropriate corporate governance structure and this has to happen at some point - and I don't think that time should be far off. Perhaps the board believe they have sufficient cover for everything - certainly a matter for clarification at the AGM.i

I did predicted the need for bigger/better lab space - I think that this is a bit like that situation - it's time to grow!

Not mentioned by anyone yet, but I'm wondering whether the Annual Report will bring news of corporate governance enhancements or changes. The company has grown and we believe it is set to grow further.

Cyrox surmised:
"Strong floor and an open roof"
That sound like someone else that considers HEMO might be a fountain!

For those that need to trade some, do, but perhaps think about keeping a few in reserve so you can enjoy being part of this investment story, with its ups and downs, along with those of us forever in Group 1.

.....except that some of the board probably don't want a meeting on a Friday before a long bank holiday weekend!

Last year it took them all day (and beyond 5.30pm) to get them approved by auditors and then signed off by auditors for release. Given their locations board meeting would be UK pm.

Hopefully the Finance Office/Company Secretary has planned ahead this year.

Because this is the latest RNS statement information issued re: IND submission status:

https://hemogenyx.com/investors/investors/announcements/announcement/2023/hemo-car-t-analytical-release-tests-completed/

We should get a further update on any further progress with the Annual Report, hopefully out on or before Friday 28th April.

Hoping the following might help those seeking relevant research re HEMO CAR-T and safety considerations which have previously referenced in RNS:

Firstly HEMO CAR-T targets FLT3 ligand (CD135) - this is a different target (but other institutions are also working on it as a target).

The FLT3 cell-surface receptor tyrosine kinase (CD135) is expressed in a majority of both acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) and myeloid leukemia (AML).

HEMO CAR-T is an autologous therapy so I think that means that GvHD is not an issue (as it would be with an allogenic therapy).

As regards safety in October 2020 Hemo issued the following RNS that referenced SAFE HEMO CAR-T:

https://hemogenyx.com/investors/investors/announcements/announcement/2020/car-t-cells-with-a-safety-switch-are-effective-against-aml-in-vitro/

Subsequently it was again reference in the Master Translational Agreement with UPenn, perhaps as a subsequent add on, since work with UPenn on HEMO CAR-T had already started by the time of the SAFE HEMO CAR-T RNS:

https://hemogenyx.com/investors/investors/announcements/announcement/2021/car-t-master-translational-agreement-with-penn/

In the following publication, Hemo referenced that they were currently testing the safety mechanism to help prevent cytokine release syndrome.

https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/136/Supplement%201/4/473807/Preclinical-Development-of-Anti-FLT3-CAR-T-Therapy

So it looks as though Hemo have already given considerable consideration to enhancing safety aspects of their CAR-T therapy in creating a mechanism that will help prevent cytokine storm; whether that is to the satisfaction of the FDA remains to be seen. Perhaps work has been continuing at UPenn on that aspect and maybe they are almost there with that too.

As a committed and hopefully very long-term shareholder I intend to be there; work commitments prevented me attending last year and prior year was online only.

Last year I too asked some questions by email but they were not referenced. The prior year most of the questions seemed to come from a single investor as Vlad kept quoting the same name and avoided (someone of importance to Vlad or another board member?). There were probably only 10 or so questions that year, and no mention of the Mint fiasco that had been terminated just a month earlier - even though that was clearly a matter of significant impact on shareholders.

Will this suffice so the board can move on?

From the 29th September RNS - the first of the Key Highlights at the very top - in fact it seems to be the very Key Highlight that you have referenced the first part of on multiple occasions; though neglecting to state it in full:

"Key Highlights

· In final stages of preparation for filing an Investigational New Drug ("IND") application to commence clinical trials for HEMO-CAR-T, following positive feedback from the US Federal Drug Administration"

It states "positive" rather than "detailed" - but arguably "positive" is more informative for shareholders as "detailed" would not infer either positive or negative in Hemo's progress towards IND submission.

"the rest of the board....."

IMO therein lies the problem - where were the 'rest of the board' with the due diligence review regarding Mint funding (or even the initial funding given the alleged criminality of some of them in the US); the CV's suggest a financier, a lawyer and chartered accountant as finance officer and company secretary. Mint fiasco, financial statements released after close of business on the final day just avoiding suspension last year. The evidence suggests that they are not spending the time or focus that is appropriate for corporate governance of a public company.

How they can get away with a website which is so out of date is another mystery. Where is the regulator?

Hoping others will be at the AGM to express these concerns face to face. Time also to research the Articles (which I think they changed relatively recently). There needs to be a proper corporate governance for the protection of shareholders.

Thanks for posting the details re: the grant awards.

Just one thing concerns me - that: "each Awardee will be appointed an Industry Mentor" - or words to that effect.
I can't believe that Vlad will want anyone else near CBR yet, nor a mentor - sharing and listening (I've not seen any evidence of that characteristic so far). I guess if awarded, he will just plough his own furrow regardless.

However the matched funding certainly ties in with recent fiund raise and is required for any amounts > $2m so perhaps he may have achieved an amount of funding, but less than the $4m that the company raised.

PK1, unfortunately I'm not of a science background - it's just that this subject has captured my scientific interest.
Based on the fact that:
- AML is very progressive (estimate 18 months to live after diagnosis) - witnessed;
- left untreated, leads to ever more frequent blood transfusions to try to delay its progression - every 4 to 6 weeks - also witnessed;
- the mouse trials showed results after just a number of days; and
- previous BBC press articles reporting the miraculous cures (although it was for ALL) of a couple of UK patients who having exhausted all other options had their T-cells sent to America for processing, and then following expansion, return and injection back into the patient, it was reported that the patient was clear of ALL within three to six weeks (I think) and in those cases reportedly continues to remain clear years later

So I think that with daily monitoring they will know how effective it is for each human trial patient within a matter of days/weeks from the patient receiving his/her initial Hemo CAR-T treatment - though the trial phase will presumably need to run its course in terms of numbers for validation (maybe that could take a year, but maybe less). I do not think that there will be a shortage of trial patients - and would hope that they are already being lined up.

And so, Vlad's version of Walter Mischel's Marshmallow Test is almost upon us:
If:
Marshmallow 1 = Hemo CAR-T
&
Marshmallow 2 = CBR

(or might it be the other way around; and with CDX still in play somewhere, who's to say that there isn't three marshmallows, or more, in Vlad's experiment).

Will you be patient enough (and brave enough) to wait?

and this subsequent comment from Vlad also referring to it.

https://twitter.com/vmsandler/status/1616491359086718976?cxt=HHwWgMDRjfOU9-4sAAAA

Please Sir, I want some more!

Stu

That reference to me was created by you. To clear things up, the link you are referring to was not posted by me. What you are referring to was a link to a tweet that appeared on the official HemogenyxPharma twitter account and which was shared by a couple of other posters.

The video that accompanied the initial tweet showed some people working in the lab and talking about something (the link is below, and as you can see now that the tweet was deleted/removed):

https://twitter.com/HemogenyxPharma/status/1627833039337189377?cxt=HHwWgsCz9cnhnJctAAAA

However it was replaced quite quickly by another; the replacement tweet was reported to be the same wording but with a different video, which did not show the face of the staff member/scientist (see below):

https://twitter.com/HemogenyxPharma/status/1628489640826048512?cxt=HHwWgMC4neisx5ktAAAA

I don’t think I made any comment or reference to either of these Tweets at all.

Hope that resolves this matter. We do not know what exactly the video is showing – but assume it to be what the caption reports.

Stu,

I saw your first reference to me having posted such a link (probably a couple of weeks ago now) but was not sure what you were referring to then as I didn't recall posting any link such as you describe. The only link that I posted around that time was the link to the paper published by UPenn (which was reposted by another contributor and you then said that was not it).

I think that whatever link you are referring to must be something posted by someone else (but I can't recall having seen what you refer to). I have not removed any of the posts that I have made and indeed would not know how to.

I haven't been posting recently as I have no new research findings to share.

...and presumably, significantly, with regard to future funding much depends on the quality of the product candidate(s), with regard to anyone's interest in it at all.

We do have Penn's published paper to go on there - in which it was stated that in tests HEMO CAR-T compared favourably with their gold standard CD123; to have got to that stage seems to be a very good starting position for Phase 1 trials.

Nevertheless, as you have reported, it is a difficult environment that Hemo has to try and navigate. It is the same in many other sectors too at the moment. If the science succeeds, perhaps Hemo will make it through, though not necessarily unscathed.

Going from prior years, year end results will be issued at the end of April. They never seem to release results early so that suggests Friday 28th April (just seven weeks today).

Thanks for sharing your update, Chris. Time to rest easy.

{So, if CAR-T = John and if CBR = James}

Waiting at the Window

These are my two drops of rain
Waiting on the window-pane.

I am waiting here to see
Which the winning one will be.

Both of them have different names
One is John and one is James.

All the best and all the worst
Comes from which of them is first.

James has just begun to ooze
He's the one I want to lose.

John is waiting to begin
He's the one I want to win.

James is going slowly on
Something sort of sticks to John.

John is moving off at last.
James is going pretty fast.

John is rushing down the pane.
James is going slow again.

James has met a sort of smear.
John is getting very near.

Is he going fast enough?
(James has found a piece of fluff.)

John has hurried quickly by.
(James was talking to a fly.)

John is there, and John has won!
Look! I told you! Here's the sun!

{from 'Now We Are Six' by A A Milne}