Member Info for stu485

MCloud,

You shouldn’t believe all you’ve been told by others!

“Tea-leaves” = RNS statements, available to all !

AIMO

MCloud,

That’s not what i said, please pay attention.

…any vegetarian requirements?

AIMO

MCloud,

Happily…prior to patient treatment and preliminary results, all as I previously stated !

Hope they have enough pie for all !?

AIMO

Mr I,

You can’t have it both ways!

You state i had inside information to accurately predicted a previous Placing, yet now when I predict another prior to the patient treatment and preliminary results, I’m a shorter and couldn’t possibly be correct …laughable!

The humble pie restaurant reservation seems to be growing!

AIMO

Dhub/HT,

I will be reminding you of my thoughts and your posts at the appropriate time !

Until then , nothing more from me.

AIMO

Haywain,

Thank you. Your thoughts are valued. The scientific knowledge you bring to this board allows for better considered debate of key aspects.

Some of the reason I’m unconvinced of the relative simplicity you believe is probably the case In proceedings with the new trial, is due to the explanatory wording used within the RNS , copy below.

“Is seeking” and “if approved” are not phrases i would expect to read should the base science of the new trial be

assured.

Obviously I realize categoric statements can not be made by the company and I openly admit to reading any correspondence with a cynical eye.

Even so , I cannot help but conclude, the door to an about turn and/or significant further works and time to gain approval for the new trial , is wide open .

No doubt others will have an opposing equally valid opinion.

“Pediatric AML and ALL: The Company is seeking to expand the HEMO-CAR-T indication to include pediatric acute myeloid leukemia ("AML") and a subset of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia ("ALL") patients. An amendment to the clinical protocol to include pediatric AML is currently under review by third party experts. If approved, the Company will seek to implement the clinical trials for pediatric AML at the newly established clinical site.”

AIMO

Haywain,

Thanks.

So, no time at all or a minimum of 4 months prior to FDA approval.

How do we find out which it is ?

Important as, if second site only for the new indication and from the RNS , it’s the expedited route/site , then very important in terms of cash burn .

AIMO

JFH,

I agree the article isn’t negative as regards Car-T .

I posted it as a question was posed , “why the wait?”

I think all would agree, the article offers the answers within.

Looking forward to an answer to my question on the FDA requirements for the new indication, which I understand is the only trial the proposed second site is presently lined up for.

All the best.

AIMO

Hulver,

Thank you, very interesting.

You might have to correct me as memory fading! The second site if secured is exclusively for the new indication trials ?

I’m pretty sure that’s the long and short of the relevant RNS?

My question, probably best adressef by Haywain;

Do the FDA have to review and approve any clinical trial of the proposed new indication and if yes , what might that entail in terms of new/enhanced application work and probable timescales?

AIMO

Digittt,

You appear to have an issue with anyone expressing any type of concern with their investment!…why ?

You and others are peddling a notion the company has absolutely no idea of when first patient could be administered.

Well, according to the company RNS, that’s simply untrue.

The company must have a rough idea, granted very rough, for the RNS statement below regarding an alternative site to Penn to be true.

“This will enhance the scope and expedite the timeline for the implementation of clinical trials”

How could they know it would “expedite timeline” if, as you suggest, they have no idea of Penn’s likely commencement?

Either your arguments flawed or the company RNS.

Having looked at your posting history, i’m sure the errors yours.

AIMO

LBoy,

If you really want to know why it’s taking time, read the full article attached.

Penn themselves ( yes Penn !), explain the complexity with Car-t trials/ treatments, the massive resources required and the shortages apparent.

I would imagine the explanation within would explain some if not most of the reason a second trial center is being sought.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/mid-decade-crisis-looms-car-t-cell-therapy

AIMO

JFH,

I’m not joining your church, don’t you worry.

The thought of the initiation ceremony and all that Mcap chanting, …no thanks!

I prefer a forum that’s properly administered and rightfully allows freedom of speech.

Wishing you and your disciples all the best…hallelujah.

AIMO

Not sure what others learnt from it but i learnt of a potential for increased funding requirements to proceed with a new indication and the potential to expedite trials.

Haywaine’s comments on the potential commercial value of the new indication are not the encouraging! His conclusion not mine.

So let’s consider the expedited trials as a positive and the real value within the new indication.

Prior to the RNS some LTH’s were stating Q3 as their first patient expectation, having considered both RNS and interview statements.

So putting both piece’s of information together, that would now result in Q2 first patient.

So who knows, maybe much to debate after the AGM!?

Until, nothing more from me.

AIMO

GLA

HT,

No !

You’ve referenced actual treatments as opposed to clinical trials.

Happy to consider any trial paper you can offer though ?

AIMO

Hik’

Firstly, it’s not my statement of a 7% chance of success.

I have simply referenced an industry paper that reports it as being so. I thought it valid to post as the original post on this subject exclusively highlighted the reward with no detail on risk.

Now let’s take a look at your statement and use the 7% you referenced, to make the point.

I think you’re stating that for you a 7% chance of success is a good risk/reward proposition given the potential upside.

Obviously the potential reward has to be considered and it would no doubt be very, very significant.

But…( and here’s the point!)

I very much doubt the general consensus with current investors is they’re comfortable with a 93% chance of failure!

Maybe i’m wrong.

I’m only arguing on Car-T and with reference to the industry paper stats, hopefully that was clear to begin with.

AIMO

HT,

7% in this report!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33078436/

AIMO

Dingo,

Humour me for a moment.

If the odds of success as you describe were 7% would you still be comfortable with your investment?

AIMO

Barbershop,

Seems you might be trying to help avoid the question I posed!?

Happy to exchange answers, go ahead Dingo and then I’ll answer.

AIMO

Dingo,

I’m afraid you missed my point and question, so I’ll try again.

Do you think 7% chance of success as you describe to be reasonable odds?

AIMO

Dingo,

So you’re “taking a risk” on the potential should H Car-T proceed through trials to a successful treatment and your very keen to show the potential in numbers.

Being keen on numbers do you think a 7% chance of actually succeeding as you describe are good odds and worth the risk ?

Seems risk/reward skewed rather a lot towards “risk”?

AIMO