Member Info for stu485

Isn’t it interesting, some might consider telling, how over a very short period, the ramp gang are now falling over themselves to claim a dilutive placing’s a really good thing, when a day or two prior, there was not a cat in hell’s chance!

Mr I , if you want to turn stones over and potentially expose individuals for having inside information, i’d suggest you look at such posters!.. one in particular.

AIMO

HT,

Slight delay..weather !

Don’t worry i’ll be long gone soon.

By the way, what’s up with u today ?

Questioning the rampers!!

Did you fall off your horse and bump your head ?

Hiki,

Why would funding most likely be dilutive with such a bright future.

JFH has told us all Hemo’ have a cure for all viruses and cancer, are u saying given that , Hemo’ can’t get none dilutive funding?

Pick an argument and think it through before u post !

AIMO

JFH,

What i find disgusting are those that knowingly deceive, attempting to convince the less informed to invest …ring any bells!?

-The mCap is incorrect and MUST re-rate.

-There is no possibility of dilutive funding.

-There is no risk remaining, now clinical.

-The only reason for languishing SP,..shorter’s.

-Hemo’ HAVE a cure for all viruses and cancer.

-The ongoing FDA investigations into Car-T risks, could not possibly have any ramifications for Hemo’

the list is as long as your posts…very long!

Fortunately whatever’s posted here will have very little if any impact to the SP, the company and the outcome.

The bigger market determines the direction of travel and that’s professional investors with informed insight and not biased, deceitful amateurs.

As I’ve previously mentioned.

I think you are already certain of what’s coming!?

In anticipation, your simply pushing a false narrative on traders/shorter’s…ANYTHING other than the true reasons.

Why? to try and deflect criticism when it happens.

I guess understandable as it’s,Just For Hemo !

AIMO

Ps You may as well post your apology in advance.

JFH,

I’m looking forward to both yours and Haywain’s public apology on this board when you’re proven incorrect!

Hopefully I’ll be somewhere with wifi to fully enjoy .

AIMO

In your case, incorrect again ! CH Mr 95% !

Haywain,

How could the FDA hold Hemo’s solution when presently they have no definitive conclusion on this particular risk with Car-T ?

Don’t be so obtuse and patronizing to the many others here less informed!

Let’s see what the FDA March meeting concludes.

I presume you will offer the same as i , a full and public apology should you be wrong and new FDA requirements become apparent?

AIMO

Haywain,

We both know the FDA can only asses on the present understanding and of course presently, all is satisfactory.

To suggest confidence it can ONLY remain the case is disingenuous.

Big Pharma have expressed concern but you don’t’.

Who should investors believe?

AIMO

Ps.

I note your climb down on Auto v’s Allo’.

Haywain,

You state:

“The risk for the stated oncogenic potential of autologous CAR-t associated with DNA integration from the viral vector is as much of a risk in autologous CAR-T as it is in allogenic CAR-T but with allogenic presenting additional challenges that must be addressed due to the fact that the cell is not isolated from the patient”

…and yet the FDA position is :

“The FDA is specifically applying the perceived risk of T-cell malignancies to autologous CAR-Ts without touching on allogeneic, or “off-the-shelf” candidates, which also use the viral vectors”

I think I’ll stick with the FDA’s unbiased and present stance!

Let’s see how things progress with the FDA , March meetings and subsequent findings/recommendations.

As with my wager on funding with JFH , I’ll apply the same ( full and public apology), in the event there are no new FDA requirements arising for Hemo’ on this specific point.

Time will tell.

AIMO

Haywain,

Knowing you have a good understanding of the science, when questioned on the subject of Autologous, why are your views in contrast to the below article and present FDA thinking!?

You’ve chosen to ignore the risk which the FDA are considering and in stark contrast to the risks highlighted by the FDA and article referenced, actually claim advantage for the method Hemo’ utilise.

Why would you do that , what could possibly be your motivation!?

The lynch mob will no doubt bury this post very quickly, without any reasonable debate on what , in my opinion, should be a very important question for investors and one posed by the FDA themselves…not me !

The FDA March 15th meeting and subsequent findings may prove pivotal for potential Autologous Car-T treatments.

AIMO

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fdas-peter-marks-shares-more-info-car-t-secondary-cancer-probe-calls-new-drug-construct

“One key question that Marks and Verdun didn’t address in their article is why the FDA is specifically applying the perceived risk of T-cell malignancies to autologous CAR-Ts without touching on allogeneic, or “off-the-shelf” candidates, which also use the viral vectors”

Haywain,

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

We agree !

We both recognise “Durability“ is key and we both agree, multiple masking most likely has advantage where durability’s concerned.

We have differing views on availability of such solutions and the “relevance” to Hemogenyx.

Regarding availability and time scales.

I’m not sure you’re aware there are already competing solutions with Allogenic, multiple masking edits, for R/R AML , in trial !?

I’m sure your aware of the FDA March 15th meeting and why Allogenic may become medically more advantageous in addition to the existing cost/time benefits.

My point in all the above is;

Has the market considered the same and combined with the known difficulties within the AML drug trial arena, could that be the reasons for what some believe to be a languishing SP and mCap,…hence the “relevance”.

Let me add a little balance before the lynch

mob reach for their lanterns and pitch forks.

I do accept for a small Bio, Hemo’ have done an impressive job with their Car-T program to date.

I don’t discount the possibility that ultimately, Hemo’s solution could in fact prove more effective than those i reference above.

I recognise, multiple new treatments for R/R AML are needed and that there’s plenty of space in the market.

I’m not a Hemo’ hater as some might label me.

I’m a pragmatist and invest on probability and not possibility.

AIMO

Cryox,

I have my own supply of oxygen thanks.

It’s called free thinking & free speech.

It wont run out !

JFH,

You’re doing more harm than good to your reputation and the narrative you’re peddling by not answering. It’s not just me who realises!

Stinky Pete,

As promised, I’m getting out of Dodge.

I might return for that gunfight you mentioned.

HW,

“Durability” the holy grail !

I know you’re aware, durability’s one if not the biggest problem with these type of treatments .

In your opinion, would you think potential treatments with multiple “masking” gene edits have an inherent advantage where durability’s concerned?

Interested in an unbiased and honest answer from the most scientifically knowledgeable poster.

AIMO

JFH,

You’re avoidance of the question is very telling!

The “new” funding the company has stated required for P1 within the RNS , will it be dilutive or not !?

Yes or No.

AIMO

I’ll read response tomorrow, you’re driving me to drink!

JFH,

I’m very sure it’s not just me awaiting your answer and “present” thoughts on the mater.

Please, …keep it short !

AIMO

HW,

I am sorry for your loss.

I doubt there’s a single poster here who’s not lost someone close to cancer.

I’m not going to divulge my experience, only to say it’s not overlooked me & my family.

I’m also sorry , my opinion on your post remains unchanged but i do apologize for any personal hurt it may cause.

Stinky Pete,

No.

JFH,

You’re confusing me!

You appear to be changing your stance in possible funding dilution.

In a sentence with less than you usual thousand words, could you please state clearly if you think P1 funding will be dilutive or not ?

A Yes or No will do fine.

For the record, HWire’s post was a little to sickly and riddled with double standards for my taste.

I’m very comfortable with my moral compass, thanks.

AIMO

Surfer73,

Good post !

My only observation, you’d have to be in “sone kind of parallel universe “ (JFH) , for P1 funding to be dilutive.

At last some balance without all the moral high ground BS clogging up the board.

AIMO

Mr I,

Unfortunately for you , there’s every chance of a re-rate !

It’s the nature of the beast, small Bio, risky and costly arena.

AIMO

Pumpky,

I think JFH already believes there’s going to be a very painful dilutive funding.

I suspect all the flapping around , pointing fingers at anything and anyone other than the company and the AML arena risks, is simply laying the ground as a forward explanation of why, when it happen’s, the company had no choice because of those nasty shorter’s .

He’s getting a defence in early .

Of course he’ll flap around in response but time will tell.

If I’m wrong i will make a very public and humble apology.

I don’t expect to be doing so!

AIMO

JFH,

Now a question for you.

Q, Why would a company with a cure for “all known viruses and cancer “ (your words ) have any problems whatsoever in non diluting funding and as you repeatedly state, not have a much higher mCap?

There’s no logic to suit your argument.

This is getting tedious !

AIMO