Member Info for Hulver

That's the way of new fundamental technological changes - per history.

The technology becomes cheaper and cheaper ............. and then it proliferates widely.

Hemo is on the CAR-T curve!

Stu - not sure the change of protocol has any relevant to this delay.

It was reported at the AGM that P3's infusion was already formulated - that's well before the change of protocol and before the exodus of staff.

I am still struggling to understand why the board did not consider it appropriate to inform shareholders of such a major change to the company.

Are there not standards of corporate governance in the UK? The financials make reference to them assessing themselves I think - really?

17 June RNS:

"The Company will now move forward with Institutional Review Board (IRB) submissions and associated site activation procedures to enable the opening of pediatric cohorts."

Why is this also taking so long - if there is a patient specific problem with P3 adult, then couldn't there be focus on getting P1 pediatric started. Is there to be a different site for the pediatric trial? The termination of staff that did this work first time around for the adult trial cannot help the situation.

Overdue an update on both cohorts.

Thanks, I stand corrected - synonyms

Per 29 July RNS:

"As shareholders will be aware, the first two patients have now been treated with HG-CT-1 with the four-week safety trials successfully completed and with encouraging early signs of efficacity."

Implies P3 did not get treated in timeline expected, though I had not expected them to announce P3 treatment if it had proceeded as planned. The mis-spelling of 'efficacy' in the RNS was strange - who wrote it - the adviser? and was it not reviewed by the board?

Likely that P1's AML more advanced than P2 based on timing of treatment, so if there has been a subsequent problem with a previous patient that had to be confirmed did not relate to the HG-CT-1 treatment before they could proceed with P3 then I would think it is more likely to be with P1.

Interesting reference to BARDA in today's BBC article below.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74dzdddvmjo

From this, could funding opportunities appear to be moving in a direction towards that of Hemo's CBR strategy?

Financial misjudgements by an experienced financial professional??

That's interesting.

Just around that time there was the move to SETS, which I think someone at the time mentioned was an election the company has to make (if so, why did the board do that?). That move coincided with the start of the 'A' automated settlement trades, which were particularly prevalent in the price reduction period post FDA announcement.

Yet Vlad has stated on several occasions that the trials will ramp up. Why do they not provide an explanation? Same for the 50% staff cuts which seems to counter the previously stated expansion plans. And no response to emails. EGM needed?

WHO alert last week - went unnoticed (or at least didn't see it reported here)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2025/07/23/chikungunya-virus-world-health-organization/85336548007/

HEMO had a CBR for that, a couple of years ago - reported in Vlad's Boston pitch, Sep 23.

Beyond time for a development partner to get involved in these things. I can't believe the board are constraining further work on CBR whilst we wait on HEMO- CAR-T

What we need is a news article like this issued on or from P1 (who in theory is now 5 months post infusion)?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq64jpg3921o

So the board RNS'd that persons approached HEMO because they wished to make a new investment in the company; and the HEMO board only charged them £1.87 and also threw in the same amount again in 'no risk' warrants!?!

A collective board decision - wow!

Happy that JHFH has confirmed that the warrants situation does not apply to all issues, and I was mistaken in assuming it did; but for the 8th May and 3rd June issues of £451,250 each with warrants at an Exercise Price of £2.70 the RNS stated:

"Warrants

Concurrent with the purchase of the New Ordinary Shares, the Purchaser will receive warrants from the Company on a one-for-one basis. These warrants will be exercisable for a period of 36 months at an exercise price of 270 pence ("Exercise Price"), subject to adjustment in certain circumstances as set out in the warrant instrument including a reset of the Exercise Price if the Company completes a share issuance (or other transaction granting rights to subscribe for equity securities) during the Exercise Period at a price lower than the Exercise Price."

The issue today and the issue on 3rd June have been at a price lower than the exercise price of £2.70 for those two batches of warrants.

3rd June at £1.80 impacts 8th May; and today at £1.87 impacts both 3rd June and 8th May warrants - don't they?

Happy to be informed that's not the case.

The exercise price of the warrants issued in Jan 2025 £5 and Feb 2025 £4 (and probably earlier warrant issues, going back in time) will be reduced because of today's and the last few issues at 1.80. The mechanism for reduction is undisclosed.

Here we go (again) - exercise price of previously issued warrants being reduced due to the issue at lower prices. Hidden away. But some investors are happy I guess - very poor governance.

Realised re: the dates later; and re-reading the RNS's think you are right re: the IND amendment.

So the IND amendment is cleared and per that RNS we await the IRB clearance - so that is what we should expect the next RNS.

Re: the website - does it suggest that there is a hold on patient 3.

And while patient 3 or a third patient remains untreated no data is being gathered towards the primary end point of phase 1 which is safety - if there is insufficient safety data produced in the trial does any efficacy in p1 and p2 have the same value as it would if safety was shown. That's what's strange - we seem to have stopped.

Must be getting close.

I note the pipeline page of the website has been further updated recently:

https://hemogenyx.com/pipeline/

strangely refers to the 2 patients treated and 3rd selected

It refers to clinically proven safety and "Freedom to Operate" of 3rd generation autologous CAR-T

But specifically, we could we get update on the plans for commencement of the children phase 1 - the pipeline table shows "IND amendment Q2 2025" with commencement of Phase 1 in H2 2025 - so if on track that would only leave this week for submission of the IND amendment, which you would think would be announced.

Per pipeline they also seem to be ready for JV or support to IND on a couple of the CBR products. It's not all about HG-CT-1. Contrributions to CBR will help support staff and possibly lab costs.

If warrants exercised => further cash raise at higher price

so, are we starting to enter an upward spiral dynamic

And this video too....

https://www.wilsonwolf.com/future-of-t-cell-manufacturing-video/

....(2.37 - 3.00) did it say, two rooms operating at maximum capacity, could service over 100,000 patients per year!

But I have to think that that will change with pediatric trials as they will likely just have the leukemia, and as soon as that is treated their health will return. So move to pediatric trials, to me, is likely to speed things up considerably, assuming no negative events.