Member Info for SocialistB

I was glad to see this morning's RNS.

It's the news we have been waiting for.

I think there is a huge advantage in the news coming out today rather then tomorrow.

Less risk of Congress people being accused of having inside information:-)

With that in mind, why have we not heard anything about CBR yet.

Well, I guess a 0700 RNS tomorrow is still early enough.

@BeardedDragon

I suggest you go back and read Saint68's post again.

You clearly got the wrong end of the stick.

Thanks for the link JustHereForHemo.

Philanthropic Funds.

Now that is something that caught my interest.

Not just investors.

If we could get such a fund onboard, then that would possibly mean zero dilution for us shareholders.

How does anybody feel about the Bill Gates fund etc that has already done significant strides in the 3rd world to eradicate various diseases.

I'd say welcome with open arms.

To those who think we might be overvalued after the last 2-3 weeks rise, here are some thoughts why that is not the case.

Google or run some AI test to see what a working Car-T treatment is worth these days.

No safety issues has been announced with the first 3 patients, with the 3rd patient past 28 days and the 1st now past 6 months.

FDA approved pediatric trial to commence after seeing data from just 2 patients, that ought to be a hint of significance.

Invited to DCNY meeting, focusing on growth opportunities.

Feel free to add more reasons

I expect an RNS regarding CBR before the conference on Thursday.

They must have further information about the product as we haven't heard much for ages, but research was happening and conducted by a third party.

Whatever knowledge has been gained, I expect the market to hear about it before the attendee's at the conference.

Although that assumption has been proven wrong in the past.

Either way, we are at the DCNY meeting, I expect it to be transformational.

Maybe straight away, maybe over a longer period, none the less, I expect it to have an awesome effect.

Here's to hoping

@Hulver

I most certainly hope you are right.

HEMOGENYX is so much more then HG-CT-1.

But, we should not just take any offer when it comes to CBR.

IF, HG-CT-1 is sold, we should have at least a substantial amount, if not the whole amount of the money needed to prove up CBR.

I'm not a fan of selling HG-CT-1, but for proving up CBR, I'd not put up much of a fuss.

Is today the day they will do the 28 day test, or is first tomorrow and what will the test show?

Will the 3rd patient also show promising indications?

I'd say it it still rather awesome one way or the other. (But for the patients sake, I certainly hope for a promising result)

Worst case scenario, as it was late administered is that we do not have the same promising signs of efficacy as with patient 1 and 2.

On the other hand if we do, then it speaks volume to the potential effectiveness of HG-CT-1.

It will take some time to get the result of patient 3.

It has certainly taken some time to get the result from patient 1, 6 months test, ie we have not heard it yet.

Makes me think that MD Anderson has chosen not to inform HEMOGENYX about the result.

I assume that the hospital has no obligation to do so, and I am certain they do not have an obligation to inform the market.

If that is the case we might not hear anything until they have compiled the results and hopefully made an submission to ASH.

On the other hand, we might be told beforehand, ie soon.

Heres to hoping

I appreciate that the seller dumped, all or a significant amount of their WARRENTS Monday, I assume they got around 9 pounds for them if they forward sold them.

Not a bad profit.

And one that more then mitigate their loss of the original shares bought, which I suspect was partly sold at a low loss.

Had they converted them and kept them, they must have been in the region of 5 percent ownership, which means they would have to declare their interest.

Much better to get it all sorted now, then after we get the news about Pt 1.

News I expect to be good.

@Hulver

I think we are in the same boat here, just expressing it differently.

I want the continuous income, exactly to ensure what you are suggesting.

Develop, the other candidates we have.

Come up with new concepts (and be able to afford to fail from time to time)

The last couple of years has not been fun, when comes to raising cash.

I'd much prefer not to end up in the same situation again.

A continuous income would prevent that.

@Pingu777

Not a miniscule sum, I'll agree to that.

We could do worse.

But in my view we could also do so much better.

Remaining the 100 percent, owners of HG-CT-1, is going to be worth so much more in the long run.

Problem with that sentence is exactly, as it states.

It will take time.

Longer then accepting an offer from big pharma.

Not everyone will be in favour of a long time horizon.

I am, as long as it seems reasonable.

I would love to be there from the early days of a new major pharmaceuticals creation.

@Pingu777

EXACTLY.

If we could get fantastic results like that, it would be amazing.

And I'd argue that even less favorable odds would still be delightful.

Seeing a checkbook come out from a big pharma, would also be delightful (if the check written is big enough)

But selling a groundbreaking product, that could potentially be accelerated through the phases and quickly become cash generative, is to me akin to pee in your pants to stay warm.

The good feeling, only last so long, and eventually you become aware how bad an idea it was.

I much prefer to have a patented cash generative product that ensures income for 20-30 years.

Do not forget, a buyer will always pay less then what it is worth.

They have to, otherwise they are doing a bad deal.

So, if the results are as good as both you and I hope for, then the Ai suggest it is possible to accelerate the process, do smaller studies then normally (less expensive) and we might even be able to get grants.

Cash generative, funding our other projects.

Company builder.

What's not to like?

I guess it comes down to what people want.

Do they really think there will be a huge payout to all shareholders where we get 90 percent of the money?

Bearing in mind how difficult it has been to raise cash and how effective short is showing to still be at this stage, I would not recommend that the company make a huge payout in the hope that people will part with them later on to develop CDC & CBR.

Part 2

Practical next steps (what we must do now)

1. Amend Phase I to add a focused expansion cohort of **12–17 patients** at the chosen dose (total target 15–20 evaluable patients).

2. Collect 6‑month durability data, centralized MRD testing, and detailed safety data.

3. Urgently request FDA meetings (Type B) and apply for Breakthrough/RMAT if early signals support it.

4. Engage one or two high‑volume cancer centers as pilot sites and negotiate outcome‑based payment pilots with major hospitals.

5. Prepare fundraising contingency: milestone loans, targeted equity tied to hitting the 6‑month durable CR thresholds, and limited strategic partnerships if needed.

Simple numbers example (conservative)

- If we treat 20 patients and achieve durable CR in 6 (30%), and get accelerated approval, modest early uptake at $400k per patient could generate $X million (after production and hospital costs) to help fund confirmatory trials. (We will produce a detailed cash model once we have clearer cost/price inputs.)

Bottom line (one sentence)

- Pursue the solo route because a compact, focused expansion that hits **~30–40% durable remissions at 6 months** could get us to accelerated approval and early revenue — keeping full upside — while keeping a JV or partnership as a realistic backup if regulators or payers require more support.

Part 1

I have high expectations to HG-CT-1.

And I would love to keep it in house.

But is it even possible?

When we get the outcome of the 1st cohort, we will know more.

If the results are outstanding , I think we should aim to go alone.

Here is what an AI had to say on the matter:

The proposition

- Aim to keep HG‑CT‑1 fully in-house and seek accelerated approval so we can sell the therapy ourselves, generate revenue quickly, and fund larger confirmatory trials — preserving maximum upside for shareholders.

Why this is realistic (short, plain facts)

- The FDA can approve lifesaving cancer therapies based on smaller trials when results are dramatic and durable. Cell therapies (CAR‑T/gene therapy) have qualified for accelerated approval before.

- If HG‑CT‑1 shows solid, lasting remissions in a small group of patients, the company can ask the FDA for an accelerated pathway and begin charging once approved.

- CAR‑T therapies command very high per‑patient prices (historical range: several hundred thousand to over $1M), so even modest early sales can meaningfully fund further trials.

What the data must show (simple targets)

- Safety: side effects must be manageable and not cause many deaths. That’s non‑negotiable.

- Efficacy (minimum convincing thresholds):

- Realistic target: **durable complete remissions at 6 months in ≈30–40%** of treated patients in a compact, well‑run cohort.

- More persuasive target: **≥40%** durable remissions, ideally many being MRD‑negative (deep remissions).

- Exceptional case: **≥70%** durable remissions in a small group would be a game‑changer and could justify approval on very limited numbers.

- Cohort sizes to aim for:

- Fast, affordable expansion: **15–20 total patients** (Phase I + small expansion). If we hit the 30–40% range here, we can credibly seek accelerated approval discussions.

- If responses are extraordinary (≥70%), **10–15 patients** may be persuasive.

How going solo preserves value

- No JV means we keep full commercial profits and future sale/licensing value.

- Early revenue from a small number of treated patients can fund confirmatory trials rather than trying to raise huge sums up front.

- Control over pricing, rollout, and patient selection remains with the company.

Honest risks and backup plan (brief)

- Risk: FDA may ask for more data or a larger trial before approval — and payers may delay coverage, slowing revenue. We may fail to raise enough funds if early data are weaker than needed.

- Mitigation/backup: prepare to offer a limited JV/licensing deal later, or take targeted strategic investments tied to efficacy milestones. We should position a JV as a backup, not the first move.

Sounds like a wise choice:-)

Always a wise move to top slice.

But what does it actually mean.

Does it mean to take out the original sum invested after a few multi bags?

Or just some cash, at some point.

I will top slice some at one point , that is for sure.

After all shares need to be out there and reach a new owner for the share price to continue to rise.

And I need some liquidity.

But I'll be holding on to most ad I have a pretty good idea of what the future could potentially hold.

@ LOTM-13.

Thank you for a thoughtful and thorough post.

I have not double checked your claims or the math, but chose to take you on your word as it does not seem to be inaccurate to my memory of how things have happened.

@pwil3150.

I think you are spot on with your comments.

Without income and free money coming in there is only a loan or dilution available at the top ofy head.

We have luckily avoided debt.

Unfortunately, the share price did not follow the science, ensuring that funding was done at an ever higher price.

It goes to show that, you ought to have a plan and pointers if you cannot continue to buy in a company without income.

I'm such a case, it seems best to find a percentage loss you are willing to accept and then sell if it is reached.

Otherwise we end up sitting on a high loss as documented so eloquently by LOTM-13.

However, don't place this responsibility at the BODs door.

They have to advance the products and secure funding.

We as investors have the responsibility to look after our investments ourselves.

But, let there be no doubt, it was not fun to be heavily in red.

With Hemogenyx, the science has generally delivered positive RNS’, but the market has not reacted as positively as I had expected along the way.

Which means that a lot of us LTHs has been deep underwater for a long time.

That seems to have changed for a lot of us who averaged down along the way, as in the last couple of days the market interest is finally catching up.

Hemogenyx has long ago cleared key development steps (INDs, Phase‑1 starts and safety updates) and, although those earlier announcements didn’t spark sustained rallies, that’s been more about market timing, liquidity and investor risk appetite than the program itself, in my point of view.

And last but not least, funding concerns, which is clearly shown by the markets reaction to the benign CLNs that was announced yesterday.

They were fully accepted, and rightly so, as they seem to be on good terms for the company.

And although that is important, then without doubt the most important thing is that the Phase‑1 data so far look clean on safety and show early signs of efficacy.

It seems that in lack of investor risk appetite, prior to phase 1 trial, it is exactly this kind of clinical signal that moves investor conviction once it’s seen.

And these clinically signals has been cautionly mentioned in various RNS’

This together with successful fundraising and investor interest with new capital coming at or above market prices seems to have removed the immediate fear of dilution at lower prices.

This is shown in the market’s price action over the last few days, which suggests growing anticipation of good news regarding Patient 1, as strong outcome here would be a major validation.

Then, if the 28‑day results from Patient 3, are also positive that could be another catalyst as it most likely would be interpreted as confirmation of consistency across patients.

Bottom line

The journey was tough, for us LTH, but the science held up by the look of it, and market conditions are improving.

If the upcoming patient readouts are outstanding, Hemogenyx looks well positioned for a meaningful re‑rating.

And recent trading shows the market is beginning to agree.

I used to dislike CLNs by default, based on past bad experiences, I thought HEMOGENYX would never go down that route again.

But after reading the RNS, I’ve been CONVERTED a bit. (Pun intended:-)

Here’s why this particular CLN structure looks reasonable and shareholder‑friendly.

The company received the £620,000 up front.

That cash strengthens the balance sheet and funds the HG‑CT‑1 trial now, not later.

Fixed conversion price at market level (£5.30) on Friday 29-8-2025.

This wasn’t a discounted placings at the time it was agreed.

But there shares continued rise means it is now at a discount to where the share price ended today.

But part of that rise, was the markets positive response to further secured funds and the CLN being of the nice kind.

It is not a floating conversion that can retroactively crush holders; it limits dilution compared with typical CLNs that convert at a discount.

It is non‑interest bearing. No accumulating coupon or growing principal which equal no financial burden for the company

Automatic conversion tied only to prospectus/headroom rules.

Conversion happens when the company can legally issue the shares without a full prospectus (expected on/after 15 Nov 2025).

That’s a clear, operational trigger rather than arbitrary or punitive conditions.

Minimal dilution (116,982 shares).

The number of new shares is small relative to the company’s existing base, so EPS/ownership impacts should be limited.

No visible punitive anti‑dilution mechanics, from what was released in the RNS.

Bottom line: there’s no financial “death spiral” here.

The cash is received now, conversion is limited and fixed‑price, and the economics are transparent.

Maybe I’ve been converted: CLNs aren’t inherently bad; well‑constructed ones like this can be a practical, low‑pain way to bridge financing.

Thank you to the investors providing further funds at a higher rate than a few weeks ago and thereby minimize dilution.

Thank you to the leadership for dearing to touch a CLN funding despite having burnt their fingers, on this particular instrument in the past.

It is clear that lessons has been learnt.

Onwards and upwards (literally:-)

What a day it has been:-)

@Aldebaran.

You are right that the posts were long.

That happens when I want to do a thorough and comprehensive job.

And it would have been an 3-4 part post had I included:

" Also, an overview of the investment case should include target market, comparative deal precedents, the significance of the P3 28 day milestone regarding commercialisation, cash position etc.."

As suggested by you.

I think, I'll let you have the opportunity to present that part of the investment case.

I hope you don't mind the delegation:-)

@F1Driver

You are so right about the leadership being the investment case.

I am not going to sit here and claim that mistakes has not been made.

But they have been navigated and lessons learned.

The leadership has proven willing to adapt and change course.

And not least, they have managed to raise funds in a difficult market, where it surprisingly was not enough having good science results.

Granted, the leadership has had help by certain investors who cares about the products and their investment.

I do not know if there has been a bitter pill for the leadership to swallow in regard to this, but if there has been, then more respect to them for doing so and being willing to make the necessary changes.

I feel we are in good hands.