Member Info for stu485

HK,

Will do.

Later today as now out.

JFH,

Sorry but I can’t leave the FDA acceptance of a plan as “pretty much de-risked” for clearance …it’s not !

If you really want i will explain why but you won’t like it .

All else accepted and agreed .

AIMO

JFH,

You feeling ok ?

A fair and reasonable couple of posts!

I already know and fully understand the particular difficulties with potential Car-T AML treatments.

I’m not so sure the majority on here do, so applaudable to shine the light with the link posted.

I see the arguments now moved back to IND clearing and away from Ph 1 risk/opportunity, very sensible .

I’m not going to give my opinion on IND clearing as I’m sure it’s going to be unwelcome.

For further balance and again another positive.

Were i a LTH with intent to stick with it , Prevail and the particular way they operate would be THE biggest positive for me.

I’m not talking, real time analysis and such like (although a plus), dig deep into their business philosophy which I believe to be, pushing the envelope right to the limits of what some might consider appropriate for scientific and/or commercial advantage.

Given the particular difficulties both scientifically and commercially that Hemo’ stand to face , Prevail are a perfect partner.I doubt big pharma would operate in the same way and hence a better deal for Hemo, and LTH’s than a top five partnership, all in my opinion.

HH,

Do you intend to offer the board an example of a successful Ph1 Cart-T AML trial ?

To demonstrate i do believe in balance , you find it , give me the details and I’ll post it …deal ?

AIMO

HH,

I’d be keen for you to post a successful Ph1 Car-T AML trial you believe would offer balance, please do ?

I’m sorry but there is a conservative effort here to try and convince others Ph1 is a done deal.

I accept you are more careful than most in making claims towards that effort.

AIMO

HH,

I accept you have tried to factor in additional risk factor for general oncology within your estimate should we consider the lower end of your proposed range .

The reality is neither you or I know what’s an appropriate percentage success rate for this particular trial.

I’ve highlighted a very similar Cat-T AML trial that did not succeed and subsequently withdrew. I did so for balance to the frequent proposition here that Hemo’ Car-T will progress through Ph1 trial is almost a given fact, to which I consider your posts suggesting the same.

Whilst it may well succeed, it’s important not to underestimate the particular difficulties specific to AML and on that point i’m sure you’d agree.

A positive ,.. Prevail .

AIMO

HH,

You’re making the same mistake you did when estimating the percentage chance of success in IND clearing.

That mistake being to ignore the particular difficulties with AML and off target complications.

Your 50-75% phase1 success rate is an average which does not make specific considerations and is therefore inappropriate.

Have a look at this.

Cart-T for AML phase 1 , …whats the status ?

AIMO

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03904069?intr=FLT3%20CAR-T%20AMG%20553&rank=1

JFH,

Two things.

1. Thank you for final agreement within last paragraph.

2. You appear to have specific information that’s not in the public domain and not simply surmised . Interesting!

Cyrox was spot on. Stop the ramping there’s no need and it actually reflects badly on the Company. That’s also applicable to those holding the RNS pen.

AIMO

JFH,

You’re correct , Prevail did not invest as an observer.

Lot’s of words but you didn’t answer the question !

What do Prevail get in return for the premium paid ?

I suggested the answers within the warranties.

It could be future stock and dilution for shareholders.

I suppose knowing you can’t continue to ignore the Elephant in the room , you’ll spin a story on they’re simply excited about the opportunity and not too concerned in securing financial guarantees for the premium paid.

AIMO

Cyrox,

Wow…honesty on this board, well done!

Hopefully you also found the explicit need to describe the percentage premium paid within the RNS as very disagreeable as did i…why was that required?

I wonder if it contributed to some of the more mathematically challenged jumping to their 6p SP conclusions.

You ask why the premium?

The answers will be within the warranties.

It would be reasonable to conclude Prevail will have negotiated future financial offsets to the premium paid. Could that be through future milestone stock offer and dilution?

AIMO

HH,

You’re not stupid!😉

JFH,(95%)

I’m sorry but there are some negative aspects to the recent RNS’s which you’ve either overlooked in ignorance or deliberately. There’s also a big positive you’ve missed.

Anyway, apparently I’m a dirty, threatening, trader who’s opinions are insignificant so i’ll leave you to it.

Just a final thought, why is the SP not at 6p ?

This board was told by multiple posters that had to be the base level if you interpret the RNS how you have.

Good luck.

AIMO

HT,

I don’t like to , particularly when others are struggling in their positions. It’s called empathy and modesty, try it one day.

Offer remains open to answer HH’s conundrum…just ask!

Ps

Out until pm so no quick response, sorry.

HH,

Should you or others want a realistic answer to the questions you’ve posed , just ask.

I suspect you won’t as any alternative opinion to that of the most absurdly optimistic, is not tolerated on this board !

AIMO

JFH,

You've misunderstood the question!

All I'm asking is would he need to notify market within 5 days ?... not has he or is he.

You might want to look back to last weeks SP though !

Appreciate any informed answer to my original question

My understanding is the CEO (VS) is required to notify the company and they subsequently the market, within 5 days of exercising the options .

I’m not 100% sure on this and would appreciate others more knowledgeable advice if correct or otherwise?

The answer would determine a new position for me.

Thanks in advance.

Micky,

Do not listen to the hype, look back and think on my comments on future funding .

Good luck.

Steve,

I agree but if I filtered them all it’d take me all day !

Micky,

My opinion and as simplistic as requested;

It’s effectively a loan , required to fund works .

The worth or otherwise to shareholders will depend on the details within the warranties, which are not given.

The short term worth will likely be a rise today but to say 6p will now be the base, i think reflects lack of understanding in the RNS.

For those who really want to dissect, “Expect , Initial, Warranties” the words to consider at length.

I think and hope it’s goodbye time.

AIMO

Bline,

Agreed!

I’ll take a break for the benefit of those who dislike being corrected.

Return on next news.

GLA

HH,

Sorry, my post is absolutely factual, all based on the content of the company issued RNS and FDA IND process documents.

Please advise with reference to the documents highlighted any inconsistencies within my post ?

I think you’ve offered enough incorrect opinion within your recent posts for any reasonably educated to realise the same. Even JFH had to correct you and that demonstrates just how wrong you are with your opinions.

AIMO