Member Info for JorisBonson

The CEO clearly struggles with his role outside the laboratory. I am surprised we don't hear from the COO (Mrs Sandler).

The CEO seems to be on $350,000 per year for his work with Hemo, topped up for work on Immunogenix by about $60,000 pa. If he has to come to the UK, he gets £1500 a day (all according to my reading of the 30 April RNS). The others seem to be on about £60k a year.

I've been on the Share-Driver thread for ages as Amateur Haematologist, and this discussion is like GroundHog Day! The only person who understands the pure science here or there is Haywain; JHFH is good on SP movements and funding; Aldebaran is a breath of fresh air; and there are others whose gut feelings are sound. But the tone generally is puerile! FWIW I think HG-CT-01 has great promise at the next higher dose, but we are all completely in the dark about what is happening and what has happened - Schrodinger's Cohort! So apt! - and an update from the company is now overdue. Bah!

I said it's a worry, not that it is most likely. A basic fact though is that AML often comes back, despite an initial response. That's why durability is crucial. P3 seems to have had more than one round of LD chemo - something potential recruits might factor in.

Ah, so you know the durability, do you? Care to share?

Mr Jinx, Re delay, the best potential reason IMO is that there is no delay and P4 has been recruited but not yet infused - remember the delay with P3 post-lymphodepletion? A little worry for me is that potential patients ask about outcomes to date and are told: "The lymphodepleting chemo is potent and the survival after infusion is X" and they think: "That doesn't sound worth it". If it was me though, I would be swayed by the increased dose in Cohort 2. On balance, as a shareholder, I feel it will all come good this month, before the AGM.

The key word there is right at the start: if. We haven't been told about the crucial durability in Schrodinger's Cohort - Cohort 1 - but nevertheless P4 SHOULD give us a big early clue about durability at the next dose through their MRD status.

Carns - currently Minister of State at the MOD - would be an interesting choice: ex-SBS I think.

Better to try and get on the trial. Nothing has been "set up" in Estonia. Not nice of you to raise false hopes like that.

Hi Alde, The dose for Cohort 2 should be the sweet spot: big enough dose to boost response compared to Cohort 1; not so big that DLTs are likely. Fingers crossed!

Estonia: a fabulous scheme, very ingenious. But, the first patient in Estonia won't IMO get approval of funding in Estonia, or a doctor to prescribe HG-CT-1, until the results in the actual trial merit it, which the info so far says to me it doesn't yet - as I've always said, the results so far are I believe good but not stellar in terms of efficacy.

"Cure" we are going round in circles here, so all I would say is that - was it Lostapound's? - concept of "Schrodinger's patient" can be applied to the whole of Cohort 1! If we had crunchy info, we'd know the answer. The fact that we don't, that there was no BP deal earlier this year, and the tone of HEMO's announcements points to excellent safety and promising responses, IMO, but not 3 durable responses. P3 is obviously the most likely to have done particularly well. I strongly suspect Cohort 2 will be the game-changer, as it is a middling dose in the lower part of the toxicity range.

Bit naughty that, JHFH, suggesting no blasts=cure. AML can come back, FLT3+ AML usually comes back. It's good to have no blasts seen, but they didn't say anything about MRD status, which is a reliable marker for durability. Anyway, there's a good feeling in the air ATM, let's hope P4 really is cured. (I'm AH from Sharedriver, btw :-) )

One swallow does not make a summer. Trials need several successes, that's how they work. Hemo doesn't need an overdose of optimism; if the next dose has better outcomes, which it should, it will be a game-changer. Estonia and CDX come later.

It hasn't been proven to "work", you are misreading the firm's info. It has shown safety and some promising signs of efficacy, but that isn't enough for it to be used outside a trial. The fact is: it's promising but no more - that's why cohort 2 is so important. This is Hemo's stated position (more or less).

Schrodinger's patient! Nicely put.

"100% certain", HFH?

Up we go!!

First of all, I've found Dug Walker generally very informative but on the question of the Prostagram trial planned to begin in 12 months time I think his concerns are over-stated. As others have said, these national screening programmes take years to get going; also, millions of PSA tests are already performed annually in the USA and UK without a national screening programme existing in either country. As we all know, the PSE is an adjunct to the PSA. So, when a middle-aged chap goes to his doctor in future complaining of slow flow or getting up three times a night to pee, the doctor might well start to think about a PSE as well as a PSA and a digital rectal exam. That's not screening, it's an investigation.

Hoping to clarify things, a screening programme goes actively looking for cases; a diagnostic test is used when a patient reports symptoms to their doctor.

In the 1950s and onwards in the UK and elsewhere, there was a screening programme hoping to detect TB in the lungs of people who felt reasonably well, using a modified chest X-ray. No one doubted chest x rays were a useful diagnostic tool, but there were questions about the wider logistics, costs and ultimate benefits. In the end, it fizzled out because TB declined naturally - but we still use chest x-rays to look at the lungs.

So, whether PSE is used for big national screening programmes or not, it still has appeal for diagnosing or ruling out PC in actual patients, it seems to me.