Member Info for Notposting

“First child recruitment and P4 adult cohort on recommended dose are another trigger.”

• These are routine clinical trial milestones, not commercial catalysts. Calling them “triggers” is just more hype without substance.

“Commercial drivers mean a buyout could happen at any time.”

• While commercial interest is always possible in biotech, this does not justify the repeated exaggerations and misleading claims in your posts. Your agenda is clear, and it appears you have already de-risked while trying to influence sentiment.

“Investors should do nothing but sit back and possibly buy more.”

• This is irresponsible advice. It ignores risk management completely and encourages emotional, uninformed investing. Given the number of misleading claims you make, you should not be offering advice at all.

The number of likes on his post also demonstrates what a dangerous echo chamber this forum has become and I would advise serious caution here.

These individuals appear to be deliberately hyping the stock while likely having already sold and sitting on risk-free warrants, meaning they carry little to no downside themselves. Do not take what they say as fact. It is far from it. I genuinely believe this could attract interest from a major partner or acquirer because the science has potential, but that is very different from the exaggerated and misleading claims being pushed. Stay informed, manage your risk, and be cautious.

Be safe.

(Save the abuse as I am not interested)

Pingu once again misleading and showing a complete lack of integrity.

“MD Anderson approached us first.”

• There is no evidence to support this claim. MD Anderson is a trial site and approved the study, but nothing suggests they initiated contact. Presenting opinion as fact is misleading.

“Ridiculously early paediatric protocol amendment request by MDA.”

• This is misleading. Early paediatric protocol amendments are common in serious diseases with high unmet needs, especially in oncology, and do not indicate anything exceptional.

“Ridiculously early paediatric approval by FDA, implying compelling data.”

• There is no evidence of compelling data. Early paediatric FDA approval is typically based on safety data from adult cohorts and is used to accelerate trials in life-threatening conditions. It is not granted due to proven efficacy.

“Funded into the New Year.”

• This is speculation. There is no confirmed funding position. Paediatric expansion increases trial costs, and there is still no clarity on spending related to CBR, Estonia (if it progresses at all), or general operating costs.

“Invited to present at the invitation-only DCNK Summit.”

• This is being exaggerated. Speaking at a conference does not validate clinical progress or financial strength. It is simply a networking opportunity and nothing more.

“Estonia expansion creating an accelerated gateway to Europe and the rest of the world.”

• This is false. It is only a Letter of Intent, not a binding agreement. There is no confirmed Estonian government support, no operational facility, and strict conditions must be met. Referring to this as “expansion” or a “gateway” is misleading.

“Passed safety first cohort (arguably the biggest challenge).”

• Passing the first safety cohort is expected in a Phase 1 trial, particularly at low doses. The main risk lies ahead with higher dosing and especially paediatric dosing, where any adverse event could halt the entire trial. This is far from the “biggest challenge.”

“MDA IRB approval to commence paediatric expansion (they own patient data).”

• This is a routine procedural step and not a significant milestone. Claiming ownership of patient data as a major point is irrelevant and adds nothing meaningful.

“P1 cleared 6 months alive, P2 3 months, P3 rapid MRD. Efficacy indications good on half recommended dose.”

• These are anecdotal observations, not evidence of efficacy. Phase 1 trials are designed for safety and dosing only. Presenting survival timelines or MRD changes as proof of efficacy is misleading.

“Independent Review Board reviewing data now. External verification coming.”

• IRB data review is a standard requirement in clinical trials and does not indicate any special progress. An IRB review is not “external verification.” Unless there is confirmation of an independent third-party audit, CRO validation, peer-reviewed publicati

Good question, Micky.

Before I get some rest, let me explain.

I have ADHD, so sometimes feel a strong need to reply when something is left unresolved. That is not about arguing or disruption. It is simply how my brain works. I also do not ignore things that feel dishonest or unfair. If something is misleading, I will challenge it because letting misinformation stand helps no one.

If I respond directly, it is not hostility. I value honesty and proper discussion and I respect anyone who engages in the same way. I am here for fair debate and truth.

Nothing more, nothing less. I don’t have an agenda at all and my brain wouldn’t let me have one either.

Hence the ‘notposting’ handle and the play on it. I hope that helps explain things. It’s also a reminder that we don’t always know someone’s reasons, so it’s worth holding back on assumptions and personal insults.

To put this into perspective, a single post from me challenging a false claim has resulted in at approximately 19 unnecessary replies (not counting previous interactions) filled with accusations, insults, and general nonsense. This only happened because a few individuals seem unable to control their emotions or engage impartially.

All of this could have been avoided with a more balanced, open, and respectful approach to discussion.

You’re free to spin whatever narrative helps you sleep at night, but let’s be clear: my posts focus on facts and are pretty clear for all to see, while your replies come across as manipulative and, frankly, a little silly.

Ironically, the only disruption here comes from a few individuals who resort to insults and nonsense, creating pointless back-and-forth. That behaviour only then exposes them further.

You may think you’re coming across well, but you’re not. Also it helps not to make self-contradictory posts repeatedly such as “assume” and “clear”, clarify and “aren’t one” in the same sentence.

Sleep well. I have better things to do 🙂

Sorry, our messages crossed. No one owes you an explanation regarding their position, but since you asked, I thought I’d be courteous and clarify.

That said, if you have offered such feedback during your 6 years here, I’m not sure why you’re suggesting others shouldn’t, or implying their motivations, or making assumptions and posting insults. It feels somewhat hypocritical.

I hope you understand that this doesn’t reflect well.

Rest well.

By ‘constructive,’ I don’t mean in an offensive way regarding your posts. I’m referring to whether you’ve ever offered feedback that genuinely critiques, provides an opposing view, or challenges inaccuracies, rather than only posting positive or agreeable comments.

I appreciate that critical thinking may not be your strongest trait, but the answer was fairly clear. You often ask questions, yet when the response doesn’t fit your narrative, you either go silent or reply with something dismissive to steer the discussion. It’s become a familiar pattern on here.

Out of interest, as a shareholder, have you ever contributed anything genuinely constructive or critical during your time on this board?

Whether one trades, shorts, or holds is ultimately secondary. However, I’ve mentioned before that I don’t trade and I don’t short. That alone should make it fairly clear where I stand and why I might choose to engage here. It’s not complex. Sometimes the simplest answer is the truest: when someone speaks, it’s not always about position. It’s often about principle.

Good luck, and I hope it works out for you. I would suggest avoiding emotional posts and focusing on presenting statements as facts rather than opinions, and refraining from personal criticism of others or making accusatory comments moving forward. I just reviewed some of your posts around the time the CLNs were released, and they were concerning, especially if made whilst you were selling, and potentially costly for several investors. It would be more constructive to reflect on your own posts, behaviour and the detrimental impact it could have previously had, or will have rather than continually criticising the balance or opposing views. Wishing you all the best. Your wife is right. Sleep well.

I wasn’t intending to pry. Anyone is entitled to take profits or manage their holdings as they see fit, but by that very admission, you have traded. I would therefore advise caution in lecturing others or criticising trading, or trying to play the saint. Once again, this demonstrates a double standard and a complete lack of integrity when you attempt to make your posts sound as if you have held throughout and never sought to gain from selling.

The reality is probably far greater, given how emotionally invested you are, but that is irrelevant. I would simply ask for less preaching and fewer posts of moralising moving forward.

It is hypocritical.

I can assure you, I’m not.

I understand the mechanism far better than most. These instruments aren’t simply offered, they are negotiated, which, it seems, you aren’t aware of.

My point is that some claim this is worth multiples of the current market cap, yet it was raised against a valuation of £1.80, in real terms half of that. It’s not about the warrants themselves. I would expect, and would support, any financial investor aiming for gain at placing level, but the issue is the constant suggestion that these are long-term holders who have invested and won’t sell. This “cohort” will remain only as long as it serves each individual’s financial gain.

You’re correct that the dilution wouldn’t have been so substantial. Also, if you believe the company wouldn’t exist without such a desperate raise, that is even more concerning, as it reflects extremely poor financial management and a lack of meaningful support, which given what has been achieved shouldn’t be the case with a well managed business.

You’re missing my point. It’s not about how the mechanism works, it’s about the ridiculous claims made by some that don’t align with the actual facts.

I don’t need your benefit of the doubt. I have never suggested that you did, nor do I believe, based on your posts, that you have any such funds or the ability to not lose it all if you did given your emotional posts. It seems, once again, that self-importance is influencing your perception.

My point remains: you are being misleading.

If the purpose of the warrants was truly to demonstrate belief in the company’s value, they would have been issued at a premium. This would have allowed for profit without risk. Your claim is therefore completely false and misleading, and it doesn’t make sense.

Perhaps you should refrain from making statements that are knowingly false. Your earlier assertions regarding these investors supposedly supporting the company are also incorrect. Like any investor, their focus is on profit. If they were not willing to pay a premium for risk-free warrants, it is unlikely they would be willing to take on the risk of holding actual shares.

It’s not pretty demonstrating how disingenuous and dangerous some are on here.

1. Have you ever sold any shares whilst in Hemogenyx?

2. Have you ever bought any shares back?

“ We adopted the US model where shares move up.”

Erm.

What nonsense. If the goal were truly to support the company and prove its worth, you would have requested warrants at even a fraction of the “£1.8 bn valuation you claim” it’s worth or at least multiples of what the market valued it atc if we were being realistic and not a “buy one, get one free” deal designed to allow you to hype the stock and sell out give yourselves a free trip to buy the warrants at any point without the risk, with double the dilution when it wasn’t necessary as if you truly believed in the success you’d have known the opportunity would arise to raise at much higher levels thus less dilution.

Had your interest truly been moral, as you continue to claim, you would have simply offered a straightforward equity deal at a premium, without attaching warrants, and not fleeced shareholders for your own gain.

People are not as naive as you seem to think; such claims are ridiculous.

These warrants prove nothing except greed and self-interest. They certainly do not demonstrate any premium and result in double the dilution that would have been necessary.

“Pride, ego, and emotion ALWAYS lead to disaster”

Yet here you are, consistently demonstrating all three yourself. The irony isn’t lost.

It’s how replies work. Most are triggered by having to respond to ridiculous, misleading, or paranoid commentary; few come from an unprovoked response. It seems logic hurts you.

Remember: obsession lives at 5,922 posts and thinking you’re that important, not 110.

That wasn’t aimed at you. I was talking about simplifying and explaining things properly. Not everything you read on here comes from actual poster knowledge as a lot of it is just AI-generated waffle being regurgitated as if it’s original thought. People copy, paste, and pretend they’re experts, when in reality they don’t understand half of what they post.

Pumpky, it sounds like you’re far more familiar with them than me, but clearly this has been going on for a while. I’ve no doubt there will have been plenty of his so-called “pearls of wisdom” buried in the history that turned out to be misleading, fabricated, or just completely wrong. That seems to be a speciality.

The arrogance would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic. It’s the kind that usually comes from someone who mistakes posting volume for intelligence.

Good luck to those who appear to believe the tripe.