Member Info for SocialistB

@Tenantry.

Thanks for your post.

Well said, as without the excellent science there truly is no investment case here.

And the science looks so amazing here.

Not just, HG-CT-1, but also CDC and CBR.

I expect that when HG-CT-1, has been proven effective, then big pharmas appetite for risk will increase and there will then be an interest in CDX.

And then we will be well funded to progress CBR.

Which I hope we will most definitely keep to ourselves.

Question is though, will we be allowed.

If we already have 2 successful candidates behind us, will big pharma be willing to let a potential paradigm shift like CBR stay with HEMOGENYX.

There is truly a risk that an offer will be received for the product or the company.

And I do mean risk, as I want HEMOGENYX to be a major pharma in itself, in 10-20 years.

Should the product or company be bought out for a good prize, I might be crying myself to sleep, comforting my self with champagne on a daily basis (ignoring the alcohol problem in this scenario, not the worst position to be in:-)

Part 2

CBR - Chimeric Bait Receptor

This platform represents a strategic, high‑priority offering in Hemogenyx's portfolio.

This innovative technology is designed to program innate immune cells, such as macrophages and monocytes, to target and eliminate a range of viral infections, including Marburg and Ebola in preclinical models, and has also shown some early indications of activity against certain cancers in vitro.

The CBR platform is advancing towards IND-enabling studies with in vitro success already demonstrated; in vivo efficacy, toxicology, and CMC data will be required for regulatory submission.

The versatility of the CBR platform positions it as a potentially transformative tool in the fight against both cancers and viral infections, but clinical validation is needed.

By harnessing the innate immune system, CBR could provide rapid responses, which is crucial in outbreak scenarios and for patients with limited treatment options.

But back to the most current situation.

HG-CT-1, has rightly garnered significant attention in the recent week, as it is a CAR-T cell therapy specifically designed for relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML).

The Phase I clinical trial is well underway and Patient 1 was treated in February 2025 and we are expecting the 6 month result to be released any day.

The treatment was reported to be well tolerated with no dose‑limiting toxicities observed to date, and early signs of efficacy are being monitored.

Patient 2 was treated in May 2025 and has also passed initial safety evaluations, reinforcing the therapy's favorable safety profile so far.

Most recently, Patient 3 was treated a few weeks ago, August 2025, and so far no serious adverse events have been reported.

Soon HEMOGENYX will complete the initial cohort, which, if predefined safety criteria are met, allows Hemogenyx to advance to a higher dose cohort and initiate recruitment for a pediatric arm of the trial, addressing a critical unmet need in childhood AML.

Conclusion

Hemogenyx Pharmaceuticals is much more than just HG-CT-1. With a robust pipeline that includes the CDX Bi-Specific Antibody and the CBR platform, the company is poised to make significant strides in the treatment of blood diseases and viral infections.

As they continue to advance their innovative therapies, Hemogenyx is not only changing the landscape of cancer treatment but also paving the way for a future where patients have access to more effective and versatile therapeutic options.

The ongoing clinical trials and the promising pipeline underscore Hemogenyx's commitment to delivering transformative therapies to patients in need.

For that reason I intend to hang around for years, (with the occasional top slice:-)

Part 1

A new week is looming before us, and I think it is worth for any new people who is checking this weeks risers to have an idea about Hemogenyx’s pipeline and why it has the potential to go much further.

Here follows a collaboration with an AI, please do your own research to double check the claims, but the following text is aligned with my understanding.

The company is dedicated to developing innovative therapies for blood diseases and viral infections.

While the current flagship is HG-CT-1, there is also CDX and CBR.

In addition to HG-CT-1, Hemogenyx is developing the CDX Bi-Specific Antibody which also targets relapsed or refractory AML and enhances conditioning for bone marrow transplantation.

This therapy utilizes bi-specific antibodies to redirect the immune system's T-cells to effectively eliminate AML cells.

Both HG-CT-1 and CDX focus on patients with FLT3-expressing AML, but they employ different mechanisms:

HG-CT-1 targets the FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) receptor using CAR-T technology.

This therapy is designed to modify a patient's T-cells to specifically recognize and attack FLT3-expressing AML cells, which are prevalent in a significant portion of AML patients.

The CAR-T approach allows for a personalized treatment that can adapt to the patient's specific cancer profile. Note that CAR-T effectiveness depends on sufficient antigen density and can be impacted by the leukemia microenvironment.

CDX, on the other hand, is a bi-specific monoclonal antibody that binds to both FLT3 and CD3 on T-cells.

This design allows CDX to activate T-cells in the presence of FLT3-expressing cells, effectively redirecting the immune response to eliminate AML cells.

Importantly, CDX is reported to be designed not to compete with FLT3 ligand, which may help activity; however, off-target effects—particularly on normal hematopoietic cells that express FLT3—remain an important clinical consideration. Bispecifics also differ from CAR-T in valency, pharmacokinetics, dosing flexibility, and manufacturing.

Rather than being direct competitors, HG-CT-1 and CDX are complementary therapies.

While HG-CT-1 focuses on modifying T-cells to attack AML cells, CDX enhances the immune response through a different mechanism, potentially allowing for broader treatment options for patients with AML.

This dual approach can provide a more comprehensive strategy for managing the disease, especially for patients who may not respond to one type of therapy.

CDX is however not in a clinical phase yet, but it is likely contingent on funding and preclinical/CMC milestones before it can enter the clinic. The science will speak for itself,as it progresses, when funding is sorted, which I expect HG-CT-1 will solve one way or another.

If HEMOGENYX can’t turn a profit on HG-CT-1 in the near future, then a JV or licensing agreement of HG-CT-1 could be a plausible route to generate revenue, depending on partner inte

@HedgeHogarth.

Great to see you back on the board.

Hope you bought back in and got some shares at the low point.

Hope to see contributions from you in the future again.

@Pawnking1, regarding your 18.21 post.

You are spot on with the percentages that you mention and the influence each stage holds.

For that reason, I'll claim that any big pharma that could potentially be a bidder would prefer to have the BOD on their side.

I would listen to Mr Sandler if he suggested to accept an offer.

If he is against, then it is most likely that so would I be. (and hopefully a lot of LTH)

The true value lies in becoming a major Pharmaceutical company ourselves.

We might have to give up HG-CT-1 to achieve this.

A scenario, I hate to think about, but am willing to accept to pursue CDX & not least CBR.

It is my hope that people, who buy shares in HEMOGENYX ,will investigate the potential of the companies candidates and vote NO to any low-ball offers.

@Saint68.

You are absolutely right.

The best way to make a difference is by ensuring the money I have spent goes directly to the company and thereby to research and salaries etc.

And if I had that choice available, every single time I wanted to by shares, that would have been my preference.

But that is not how the stock market works.

You are correct that I just buy the shares from another John Doe and the the company does not get a cash injection from that transaction.

So the only miniscule impact that my share buying can have had, is trying to ensure the price do not fall into a bottom less pit.

As all of us who have continuously topped up have discovered it was an almost impossible task, as the share price kept falling.

So the only possible positive effect, my share buying can possible have had together with other LTH investors in the same boat, is that without our buying, the various raised would have at an even lower price.

A bit far ought and miniscule effect ( if there ever was one), but I'll take it and run with it.

It is the only way, available for most shareholders to effect the share price positively.

@Saint68.

If I was to purely invest from a desire to make money, then you are absolutely right that my last post makes no point.

But, investing for me, is about more then a desire to just make money.

There is also a desire to make a difference and if possible, to make the world a better place.

However misguided I might be in this belief, then I do believe that I am doing my little bit by having on several occasions bought shares on the open market, in this company over the last 5 years.

So, yeah, I am proud to have gone the distance, in a personal financial difficult time as I no longer have the same income as I once did.

It's financially wise to cut your losses when your 20 percent down.

But, I have withstood that temptation.

And we are finally here, at an infliction point.

So, yeah, very proud to still be onboard and not least to have been here for such a long time.

If your point was that, the claim that I wouldn't have the same amount to invest, well in my case that is very much true, I really wouldn't.

Lately, I have only been able to buy for peanuts.

So, from that point of view, I am glad that I have been able to put more of my money where my mouth is, in the past.

Even if it has meant sitting on a significant paper loss.

Again, each to their own and horses for courses, etc etc

@Aldebaran

From a financial point of view, it would be awesome for me to first buy in now.

I would not have experienced sitting on a paper loss in the region of 70 percent at any point, which is no fun.

And, if I had the same amount available in cash to invest today, as I have invested over the last 5 years, I'd be able to more then double the shareholding I currently have.

And that would be awesome.

But here is the thing.

I wouldn't have that amount of money to invest, had I done it differently.

But most of all, I would have less to be proud of, I'd loose my future bragging rights, or whatever it can be called.

I for one, am proud to have been on this journey over the last 5 years and supported the company by buying shares on the open market (if that can be called support)

I am proud to have endured a significant paper loss, but stayed the distance, through difficult times.

I am proud, because I believe HEMOGENYX is onto something big, that will revolutionize medicine as we know it.

If HEMOGENYX becomes as successful as I dream about, I'll have something to be proud about in the future, even though my contribution has been miniscule.

Others, like JustHereForHemo and Haywain et al, will have a lot to be proud off.

You have made it clear, that you have no desire to stand the distance, it is all about timing it correctly.

Each to their own.

But, yeah, financially it sure would be nice to first join now.

But since I do like to brag, I am good where I am:-)

@Hulver, I think we should appreciate all the help we can get.

And be thankful to those who have gone the extra mile to protect their investment and in doing so also ours.

If the BOD, had had access to individuals like that in the past, I'm sure they would have invited them to invest a long time ago.

So a big thank you, from me, to JustHereForHemo and Haywain et al.

And a welcome onboard to the new investors, in my humble opinion, you have made a wise choice and chosen a fantastic time to invest, I'm just ever so slightly envious of your timing as I, from a financial point, would love to first get in now:-)

On the 17th of June 2025, Hemogenyx Pharmaceuticals received FDA clearance to expand its HG-CT-1 clinical trial to include pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML).

This approval happened after only having injected 2 adult Patients.

This significant milestone, in my opinion must suggest, that the current research have demonstrated compelling evidence of efficacy and safety, likely showing that HG-CT-1 is far more effective than a placebo or standard treatments.

I think it fair to assume the preliminary data from the adult cohort likely indicated a strong therapeutic effect, which is crucial for the FDA's decision.

Given the aggressive nature of R/R AML, the need for effective therapies is urgent, and HEMOGENYX’s results is likely to have shown a notable improvement in patient outcome for the FDA, to reach the conclusion they did.

Tick tock, the clock is ticking.

We might get an answer as to how well Patients 1 has reacted to the first injection, later on this week.

My post below, does not seem to be coherent to the message before and for good reason.

It was a response to a post from Aldebaran, that he uploaded after my Saturday post.

His post is no longer there, I assume it has been reported and removed.

My initial suggestion of 4 BILLION was indeed taken out of thin air, it was nothing more then a hopeful guesstimate as I was once a shareholder in Avacta as well and wish nothing but the best for the company as it will have a positive effect for cancer patients.

But it turns out, according to one Ai, that I was a bit optimistic with the valuation if Avacta was to be snapped within the year:

"Avacta is currently in **Phase 1b clinical trials** for its lead product, **AVA6000**, which has shown promising initial results. However, it is still early in the development process, and the drug has not yet received regulatory approval. The oncology market offers significant potential, but Avacta lacks established products and revenue streams, which impacts its valuation.

Recent pharmaceutical acquisitions have ranged from **$11.5 billion to $74 billion**, but these companies typically had proven products. Given Avacta's early stage and the inherent risks of drug development, a reasonable price tag for the company could be estimated between **$1 billion and $3 billion**. This range reflects the potential for growth while accounting for the costs of further development and the risks associated with clinical trials. If Avacta can demonstrate significant efficacy and safety in larger trials, its valuation could increase substantially in the future."

But for arguments sake and the ease of it let's say that your right and Avacta's products are so fantastic and it is discovered and appreciated by a big pharma and they are willing to pay 50 BILLION pounds (not Dollars as is common, hence the ease) and decide it by 500 million shares then that equals 100 pounds a share.

100/0,5 = 200 multi bags

That is by no means bad.

But HEMOGENYX multi bags potential in the last post was 380.

And that was with a valuation of just 4 BILLION, which is much more likely to be achievable on the basis of probability.

Again, I know where I want to be to maximize my ROI

Earlier today it was claimed:

"Neither company will get anywhere those figures as big pharma will buy them out way beforehand. But still, lot of upside potential in both"

Avacta has some 400 million shares in issue.

Let's say that Avacta gets snapped up by a big pharma for some 4 BILLION.

That equals around some 10 pounds a share.

Or around a 20 fold of today's price.

I postulate that HEMOGENYX would be a steal at 4 BILLION, as it also has CDX and not least CBR, as well.

If we assume that HEMOGENYX has 6 million shares in issue at the time it is being acquired then it will amount to around 666 pounds a share.

666/1.75 = 380 multi bags vs 20 for Avacta

I know where I want to be:-)

While we wait for the 6 months result, why not have a bit of fun regarding the potential value if successful. Here is what one Ai had to say:

Estimated Value of HG-CT-01 if Successful in AML Treatment

If HG-CT-01 demonstrates Complete Remission (CR) or Minimal Residual Disease negativity (MRD-ve) in its upcoming trials, its potential market value could be substantial, especially considering the current landscape of CAR-T therapies and the specific need for FLT3-targeted treatments in AML.

Market Demand for FLT3 Inhibitors in AML

The market for FLT3 inhibitors, which are crucial for treating AML, is projected to grow significantly:

The FLT3 inhibitors market is expected to reach USD 440 million by 2025, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8% through 2032.

The overall acute myeloid leukemia treatment market is projected to grow from USD 3.47 billion in 2024 to USD 6.29 billion by 2030, reflecting a CAGR of 10.6%.

Valuation Estimate for HG-CT-01

Given the recent acquisition values and the growing demand for effective AML treatments, if HG-CT-01 shows promising results, it could be valued in the following range:

Conservative Estimate: If the therapy is positioned similarly to recent acquisitions focused on innovative CAR-T technologies, a valuation of USD 350 million to USD 500 million could be reasonable, especially if it demonstrates significant efficacy in a challenging patient population.

Optimistic Estimate: If HG-CT-01 shows exceptional results leading to a strong competitive advantage in the FLT3 space, it could command a valuation closer to USD 1 billion or more, particularly if partnered with a major pharmaceutical company looking to expand its oncology portfolio.

Conclusion

The potential value of HG-CT-01, contingent on successful trial outcomes, could range from USD 350 million to over USD 1 billion. This estimate reflects both the recent trends in CAR-T acquisitions and the critical need for effective treatments in the AML market, particularly for patients with FLT3 mutations. The actual valuation will depend on various factors, including the robustness of clinical data, competitive landscape, and strategic interest from larger pharmaceutical companies.

If we get a positive result next week or in the next couple of weeks, it looks like we could expect a significant value increase.

However, my dream scenario is still that Hemogenyx get to go alone and becomes a significant player in the pharma industry.

Having said that, I am not allergic to parting ways with HG-CT-1, if it is with the purpose of progressing CBR, as this is the crown jewel in my view.

The market was informed of the injection of Patient 1, on Monday 24-2-2025.

Meaning the Patient cannot have been injected any later then Friday 21-2-2025, and possibly a couple of days before.

In other words it's time for the 6 months test.

What will it show?

Complete remission (CR) or minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-ve)?

Or maybe even something less exciting, but I doubt that, as in I have no idea what that would qualify as being called.

Either way, Patient 1 is still alive and therefore presumably doing well.

That is good for them.

And it is good for us.

The test might already have been performed or it might happen in the near future.

Now is just a waiting game for the results.

I am sure we will all be pleased.

Part 2 from Ai.

Detailed Contributions

Carl H. June

Discovery: Developed CAR T-cell therapy, which involves genetically modifying a patient's T cells to recognize and attack cancer cells.

Impact: This therapy was first used in clinical trials in 2010 and led to the first FDA approval for treating ALL in 2017. It has since spurred additional approvals for other blood cancers, demonstrating long-lasting remissions in patients.

Value: The therapy has transformed cancer treatment, providing hope for patients with previously untreatable conditions.

Koen van Besien

Discovery: Introduced haplo-cord blood transplants, allowing the use of cord blood from partially matched donors.

Impact: This method has been particularly beneficial for patients with HIV and leukemia who do not have a fully matched donor, expanding treatment options significantly.

Value: It has improved survival rates and quality of life for patients who would otherwise have limited options.

Michael Shepard

Discovery: Co-developed Herceptin (Trastuzumab), the first monoclonal antibody approved for HER2-positive breast cancer.

Impact: This drug has been pivotal in treating breast cancer, leading to improved survival rates and reduced recurrence.

Value: Herceptin has benefited over 500,000 patients and has generated significant revenue, contributing to the growth of targeted cancer therapies.

Marc Feldmann

Discovery: Pioneered anti-TNF therapy, which targets TNF to treat autoimmune diseases.

Impact: This discovery has led to the development of several biologic drugs that have transformed the treatment landscape for conditions like rheumatoid arthritis.

Value: The therapy has improved the quality of life for millions of patients suffering from chronic inflammatory diseases.

Dr. Vladislav Sandler is a leading researcher in stem cell biology and a co-inventor of HEMO-CAR-T, a CAR T-cell therapy specifically designed for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). He is associated with Cornell University and serves as the Co-Founder and CEO of Hemogenyx Pharmaceuticals. Additionally, he developed HU-PEC (Human Pluripotent Embryonic Cell) technology, which aims to create a versatile source of hematopoietic stem cells for treating blood disorders. HEMO-CAR-T is currently in clinical development, providing new treatment options for patients with relapsed or refractory AML. Sandler's pioneering work addresses significant limitations of traditional stem cell sources, potentially revolutionizing therapies in regenerative medicine.

These contributions reflect the ongoing advancements in medical science and the impact of innovative therapies on patient care. Each individual's work has not only addressed critical health challenges but has also paved the way for future research and development in their respective fields.

HereforHemo's post inspired me to ask Ai some questions. Here follows part 1.

Contributions to Medicine by Key Individuals

Here’s a detailed overview of the contributions made by each individual mentioned, including their discoveries, the medical candidates they developed, the problems they addressed, and the impact of their work.

| **Name** | **Year of Discovery** | **Medical Candidate** | **Purpose** | **Problem Addressed**

| **Carl H. June** | 2010 | CAR T-cell Therapy | A personalized immunotherapy that modifies T cells to attack cancer cells. | Blood cancers, particularly acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). | First FDA-approved personalized cellular therapy in 2017; significant remission rates. |

| **Koen van Besien** | 2023 | Haplo-cord Transplant | A method to use cord blood from partially matched donors for transplants. | Patients lacking fully matched donors for stem cell transplants. | Expanded transplant options for patients with HIV and leukemia.

|

| **Michael Shepard** | 1998 | Herceptin (Trastuzumab) | A monoclonal antibody targeting HER2-positive breast cancer. | HER2-positive breast cancer, which has poor prognosis. | Benefited over 500,000 patients; significant reduction in recurrence rates.

|

| **Marc Feldmann** | 1990 | Anti-TNF Therapy | A treatment targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF) to reduce inflammation. | Autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. | Revolutionized treatment for chronic inflammatory diseases; improved quality of life. |

| **Vladislav Sandler** | 2023 | HEMO-CAR-T | A CAR T-cell therapy targeting acute myeloid leukemia (AML). | Relapsed or refractory AML. | Potential to improve outcomes in a challenging patient population. |

### Detailed Contributions

@JustHereForHemo

Thank you for the offer of joining the pledge group.

Unfortunately, my current situation does not guarantee even a paltry pledge of a 100 quid a month, so it would be anything but meaningful to sign up.

However, should my fortune change, like win the lottery or something like that, or just increased salary (note the order, it was not by accident:-), please allow me to reach out to you.

So no, the comment was not a serious one.

It was nothing more then a remark to pumpky, that it sounded like a good investment and why wouldn't anyone like to participate on those terms with that suggested profit margin he mentioned.

It would be crazy not to:-)

My apologies, just woken up and not gotten sleep out of my eyes properly.

It's still there at 1804

One of my posts in this thread has been removed.

There was no use of offensive words.

There was no investment advise.

It was a reply to a comment by pumpky.

At worst, it it could be accused of being a snide comment, of which he is the master.

Who will own up to be responsible for getting it and one of pumpky's post posts removed from this thread.

I doubt LSE, on their own accord selectively removes 2 posts.