Member Info for Notposting

I’m still here and no different to how I’ve always been. I stepped back from posting because the so-called “ramping gang” were repeatedly getting posts removed through mass reporting as I ironically stated in my last post that was then removed. Once I stopped posting, engagement naturally dropped, so there was nothing I felt obliged to respond to.

My points have already been made, and contrary to some of the nonsense being pushed, I was never posting for financial gain, unlike others. It’s becoming increasingly obvious, even to some of the staunchest supporters, that this has turned into an echo chamber for the same usual suspects, many of whom are financially benefiting from vulnerable and gullible people and denying the funding hole.

I’ve never pretended to be anything, and in any case, whether I’m male or female is completely irrelevant.

Should have played the “Wetherspoons Buy Me a Drink” game Pumpky. I’d have bought you a few!

Well said SNewby.

MrIndia. They aren’t presenting at ASH, neither have they announced attendance. The fabricated comments by you advising of meetings is just that.

NCtrade/ Saint.

He actually stated:

“We will obviously go after efficacy, we already have signs, good signs of efficacy but ultimately we will have to go to phase 2 clinical trials to demonstrate that this treatment really helps patients. You know has good efficacy and then the sky’s the limit. I mean we are obviously talking to large pharmaceutical companies that potentially may either acquire or in licence this treatment”.

It is important to note that the company’s prospectus also confirms that none of their products have proof of concept.

Additionally, the statement:

“The TR1 holder from yesterday also would have carried out his own due diligence and poured more money in…”

is irrelevant, as previously outlined as follows:

I think it is important to separate the size of an individual investor’s position from the actual risk profile of the company they are buying into. Someone putting £2.4 million into HEMO does not suddenly validate the science, reduce the clinical risk, or change the fundamentals of where the company currently stands. It simply shows that one person is willing to take a very large speculative position, and nothing more.

HEMO is still in Phase 1 and has treated only three adult patients so far. They are now preparing to escalate the dosage for the fourth adult and to move towards treating their first paediatric patient, which naturally increases uncertainty and clinical risk. Early stage cell therapy programmes, particularly those targeting HGCT1, carry high historical failure rates, and no amount of personal conviction from a single investor overrides those statistical realities.

In addition, a £2.4 million buy-in does not remove the company’s significant funding needs. Progression through dose escalation, paediatric dosing, manufacturing scale-up, and later phase trials will require substantial further capital. That requirement does not disappear simply because a wealthy individual has decided to take a chance.

So although the investment might be eye-catching, it should not be mistaken for due diligence, validation, or reduced risk. At this stage, anyone investing, whether £2.4 thousand or £2.4 million, is operating on the same limited information and the same balance-of-probabilities assessment that comes with all Phase 1 biotech investments.

SNewby is also correct. The market is already pricing in a degree of optimism at these levels, which makes it even more important to keep perspective. The risk remains extremely high, although the potential reward could be significant if the science holds up. But that balance of risk and reward does not change simply because a single investor has taken a large position.

Finally, any claim suggesting that:

“The CEO of Hemo is very confident and It’s not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’ that deal lands.”

is inaccurate. The CEO has not made this statement in the interview, and its inclusion appears to be a fabricati

That’s not correct or what was said at all as I’ve previously outlined before yet you continue to post a misleading narrative.

But you didn’t, did you? The calls have been accurate from the highs, and I believe you may have sold some during that period, so not quite.

Those who focused on fundamentals and sensible commentary rather than hype would have been far better off. That’s a fact, so perhaps save the “smart” comments.

The funding element is still unresolved and you still need £5.6m by January so the dilution will do its thing, so a small recovery doesn’t mean caution should be thrown out the window. Traders can only hold it up so much. What goes in, must come out. 🫠

🤯😄

And to answer your question: yes. A prudent or genuinely sophisticated investor would have either waited for the expected dilution or provided capital through the primary market at a discount, given the current funding requirements. This would also allow for direct support of the trials. Choosing instead to accumulate heavily, even in part on the secondary market suggests a lack of strategic consideration, which is exactly why following that holder’s position uncritically is a cause for concern.

Only up. The company have outlined the urgency and need, not me. Whether some random individual chooses to invest that amount as a speculative play is entirely their decision, but it doesn’t change the facts. Their personal gamble doesn’t alter the situation the company itself has set out, which are:

To address this anticipated funding shortfall, the Group will require additional working capital of approximately £5.6 MILLION BY THE END OF JANUARY 2026 in order to continue its product development activities, with a primary focus on HG-CT-1, to the end of 2026 and an additional £10 million during the period from 2027 to 2028

The Group will have insufficient working capital after Admission, and further funds will be required to be invested in the first quarter of 2026 for the Group to continue its activities and thereafter to complete Phase I trials of HG-CT-1 in both adult and pediatric patients.

The Company is of the opinion that the working capital available to the Group will be insufficient for its present requirements, that is, for at least the next 12 months from the date of this document.

Saint. Did you forget to log back into your Bline account or something after liking your own post? Seems a bit odd you’ve started off with “also”.

Bline. Firstly, I haven’t implied anything about when he bought in.

Second, even if I had, it would make no difference as the timing doesn’t change or undermine the points I’ve made.

I haven’t said that. I think it is important to separate the size of an individual investor’s position from the actual risk profile of the company they are buying into. Someone putting £2.4 million into HEMO does not suddenly validate the science, reduce the clinical risk, or change the fundamentals of where the company currently stands. It simply shows that one person is willing to take a very large speculative position, and nothing more.

HEMO is still in Phase 1 and has treated only three adult patients so far. They are now preparing to escalate the dosage for the fourth adult and to move towards treating their first paediatric patient, which naturally increases uncertainty and clinical risk. Early stage cell therapy programmes, particularly those targeting HGCT1, carry high historical failure rates, and no amount of personal conviction from a single investor overrides those statistical realities.

In addition, a £2.4 million buy-in does not remove the company’s significant funding needs. Progression through dose escalation, paediatric dosing, manufacturing scale-up, and later phase trials will require substantial further capital. That requirement does not disappear simply because a wealthy individual has decided to take a chance.

So although the investment might be eye-catching, it should not be mistaken for due diligence, validation, or reduced risk. At this stage, anyone investing, whether £2.4 thousand or £2.4 million, is operating on the same limited information and the same balance-of-probabilities assessment that comes with all Phase 1 biotech investments.

SNewby is also correct. The market is already pricing in a degree of optimism at these levels, which makes it even more important to keep perspective. The risk remains extremely high, although the potential reward could be significant if the science holds up. But that balance of risk and reward does not change simply because a single investor has taken a large position.

HedgeHogarth is once again presenting a misleading narrative, this time by claiming that the TR1 holder must know what he is doing or has carried out some superior level of research. There is no evidence for any of that. A TR1 of this type carries very little weight and does not suggest expertise, insight or meaningful due diligence.

The company itself remains a going concern with material uncertainty. It urgently requires approximately £5.6 million, and that need is both imminent and critical. This is science-driven, where outcomes are inherently unpredictable and no retail buyer has privileged knowledge.

Attempting to imply that this purchase signals hidden understanding or credibility is simply incorrect and risks misleading others but it wouldn’t be a first of him to do that.

Putting aside that comment. I assume you haven’t heard of conditional placings/ CLNs?

Let’s hope it’s not a bull trap for your sake given the significant funding gap 😉

Investing.com and google etc use the last trade price published not the live prices hence the confusion.

He doesn’t, but then a few of them tend to do that and post misleading statements 😆 notice the silence against it?

LOL. Rampers galore for the trade.

Lostapound. Let them learn the hard way.

The mindless hype is out in full force over a TR1 by effectively a nobody.

£5.6m still needed before January 🫠