Member Info for stu485

Haywire,

After multiple public denials you now embarrassingly accept, previous Car-T trials for r/r AML have commonly resulted in early Efficacy and patient remission, Complete Response(CR’s).

All as the independent paper i referenced and is a matter of fact. (Car-t trial results in r/r AML; CR’s 49.5%)

However, you argue the legacy Car-t r/r AML trials early Efficacy results would not be representative of the likely Hemogenyx trial outcomes as;

Hemo’ Car-T is different. It’s a new Car-T generation with a Novel antigen target, FLT-3.

So wouldn’t logic suggest it should be “reasonably unsurprising” should Hemogenyx announce improved early Efficacy results to legacy trials ? and for instance, possibly both P1&P2 Complete remission.

I’ll provide my answer should you decide not to,…or more likely, reply and distract with scientific verbiage, as is your M.O.

AIMO

I’m sorry Haywire but i must have missed the alternate and independent trial review paper you attached and referenced to substantiate , within the many words used🤔

Oh , sorry i see ….you didn’t attach anything !

Just baseless contradiction again. Well at least we all now know beyond doubt, you were and are PROVEN wrong !

When the ramp happens , your promptings have made me even more determined to communicate;

Efficacy without Durability is of little financial value.

See you then.

AIMO

Haywire,

Efficacy and CR’s are a high probability as the science to date records. You and i both know, Efficacy without clinically significant Durability, is of little value ( financially speaking).

Why are you trying to defend the indefensible… i wonder !?

Actually I don’t wonder , I know, and now this topic has been well aired, i’m sure many others do too.

When the inevitable pump happens and the Clown crew here mug off a number of poorly researched PI’s with their misleading ranting of a “cure” well before durability of the type supportive of a curative treatment, i hope you’ll be very satisfied. I’d ask you to spare a thought to those individuals the likes have recently and bravely confessed to mental issues caused by their investment here but I suspect it will only fall on deaf ears.

Now , please read the below extract and explain how r/r AML Car-T trials do not commonly produce CR’s.

Should you decide to ignore the independent scientific paper referenced and wish to argue, make sure to attach a similar independent report referencing the same or greater number of Car -T r/r AML trials reviews that substantiate your presently, bases less claim.

Contradiction without supporting evidence is a childish endeavour.

57 patients and 10 clinical trials , make sure your independent paper is equally representative.

“We performed a literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov. After screening 677 manuscripts, 13 studies were included. Data was extracted following PRISMA guidelines. Pooled analysis was done using the meta-package by Schwarzer et al. Proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed.

Results

We analyzed 57 patients from 10 clinical trials and 3 case reports. The pooled complete and overall response rates were 49.5% (95% CI 0.18-0.81, I2 =65%) and 65.2% (95% CI 0.36-0.91, I2 =57%). “

AIMO

“We analyzed 57 patients from 10 clinical trials and 3 case reports. The pooled complete and overall response rates were 49.5% (95% CI 0.18-0.81, I2 =65%) and 65.2% (95% CI 0.36-0.91, I2 =57%).”

1. Early efficacy and Complete Response is relatively common in Car-T r/r AML trials.

Haywire now concedes and accepts , that trial data to date confirms the same. See attached.

Should you wish to “ trust the science” as i do, then it’s not an unreasonable assumption to anticipate the Hemogenyx trial will also demonstrate early efficacy and hopefully patient CR’s.

The unfortunate difficulty is within durability in response , which from the trial perspective and if we’re considering a curative treatment as Haywire predicts, requires +1year* and a statistically appropriate cohort. I understand the Hemogenyx trial outlines 18 patients.

I hope for the patients sake, Hemogenyx or one of the many other Car-T r/r AML trials, succeeds and provides a curative solution.

You can bury and ridicule away , it will not change the accuracy in my posts and independent papers i reference.

Have a good weekend.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10164930/

* Some relapse recorded plus one year in previous trials.

AIMO

Solow,

You’ve just made my point again , thank you.

Below you accept that the trial referenced resulted in 7 of 10 Complete Response.

My only argument/point was, Haywire’s statement was in contrast to the recorded facts and absolutely incorrect.

Aside from my outing of Haywire (again), and fyi , i expect Hemo’s trial to also have patient CR’s.

Why?

Because the science to date suggests it should .

AIMO

To the Clown crew.

You can swarm all you like but the facts are here for all to read.

As below, Haywire’s statement IS INCORRECT!

Haywire post 09:02

“This is where you have got this one a bit wrong Stu - no CRs are not common in AML and certainly not common to have a clean safety profile + CR using CAR-T in AML and especially not for r/r AML : go back and do some reading and try harder”

Stu Response:

Haywire,

If there was any doubt as to your impartiality and remaining flicker of some objectivity, you’ve just distinguished that flickering flame for all to see.

So let me be clear and state again, it is relatively common for Car-T trials in r/r AML to demonstrate early efficacy and CR’s complete response.

I’m afraid your soapbox statements to the contrary do not trump known and recorded previous clinical trial outcomes.

For example and i quote;

“ In a phase I clinical trial involving 10 cases, CLL-1 CAR-T cells demonstrated remarkable therapeutic potential that 7 of 10 R/R AML patients achieved CR/CRi (25). Although the application of CAR-T therapy in AML treatment remains in the early stages, trials to date have achieved encouraging initial outcomes just like in other hematological malignancies.”

So you my scientific friend have been publicly outed yet again.

I would suggest all do their own research and find with a very simple search, the truth!

AIMO

To all, please do your own research and discover if as I’ve explained;

Car-t trial treatments for r/r AML have previously and relatively commonly resulted in early efficacy and patient Complete Response CR’s.

It’s a very quick search.

The importance is not just of the fact you’ll discover but more you’ll better understand Haywire’s role here , if as i maintain, you will confirm the inaccuracies in his previous statement and then question, why would a scientist be so wrong 🤔

Don’t take my word for it please, DYOR

AIMO

Haywire,

This is such a black&white example of you trying to use your “apparent” scientific knowledge to convince others on a very important point , categorically now proven incorrect with reference to independent data, it’s worth while sharing with others again.

————————

Haywire,

If there was any doubt as to your impartiality and remaining flicker of some objectivity, you’ve just distinguished that flickering flame for all to see.

So let me be clear and state again, it is relatively common for Car-T trials in r/r AML to demonstrate early efficacy and CR’s complete response.

I’m afraid your soapbox statements to the contrary do not trump known and recorded previous clinical trial outcomes.

For example and i quote;

“ In a phase I clinical trial involving 10 cases, CLL-1 CAR-T cells demonstrated remarkable therapeutic potential that 7 of 10 R/R AML patients achieved CR/CRi (25). Although the application of CAR-T therapy in AML treatment remains in the early stages, trials to date have achieved encouraging initial outcomes just like in other hematological malignancies.”

So you my scientific friend have been publicly outed yet again.

I would suggest all do their own research and find with a very simple search, the truth!

AIMO

Haywire,

If there was any doubt as to your impartiality and remaining flicker of some objectivity, you’ve just distinguished that flickering flame for all to see.

So let me be clear and state again, it is relatively common for Car-T trials in r/r AML to demonstrate early efficacy and CR’s complete response.

I’m afraid your soapbox statements to the contrary do not trump known and recorded previous clinical trial outcomes.

For example and i quote;

“ In a phase I clinical trial involving 10 cases, CLL-1 CAR-T cells demonstrated remarkable therapeutic potential that 7 of 10 R/R AML patients achieved CR/CRi (25). Although the application of CAR-T therapy in AML treatment remains in the early stages, trials to date have achieved encouraging initial outcomes just like in other hematological malignancies.”

So you my scientific friend have been publicly outed yet again.

I would suggest all do their own research and find with a very simple search, the truth!

AIMO

MrI,

Without being sarcastic, i know you will need to properly consider my question;

Q. Knowing early efficacy in similar Car-T AMl trials is not unusual, should Hemo’s trial demonstrate the same, why would that in itself make the company “ very valuable” ?

You have made a grand claim and the question is deserving an answer, without it may seem to some just another baseless ramp !

AIMO

Morning Mr I,

Are you aware that it would be relatively unusual for there NOT to be early Efficacy within such a trial ?

Some similar Car-T AML trials now sadly terminated, have previously demonstrated early efficacy with 70% Complete Response rates.

Understanding that it would be quite normal for there to be early efficacy and hopefully CR in P1&P2 , why would that automatically make the company ... "very valuable" as you claim ?

My question is genuine and straightforward so hopefully you'll grace me/others with some substance to your claim and not simply dismiss or deflect.

As a note on the human element here as opposed to financial.

Obviously and unquestionably , early efficacy would be good news for P1&P2, especially so should a positive response prove durable, figers crossed.

None of us actually know the present clinical condition of P1&P2 and can only hope and speculate they're doing well. I expect we'll find out soon.

AIMO

GlassH,

Boom has the intellect to see through Haywire’s emperors cloak of twisted science.

Many others now have the measure of the science man and his role here.

AIMO

Micky,

It looks to me that either Mr I himself or more likely, LSE admin, have removed his infamous “snapped up” in July post.

If it’s Mr I, then obviously he’s back peddling his little tricycle for fear of being called out end of July.

If it’s LSE Admin then, about bloody time they started to delete blatantly misleading posts !

AIMO

Thank you for answering Mr I 👏

So after all , it’s just as assumption.

It’s one i share with you but would never try to mislead others into believing it’s fact.

Put the Clown bike away for today please, we need a rest.

Have a nice day.

AIMO

Mr I,

I’m afraid that you do have to answer when the question relates to your statement of fact on the condition of P1&P2 of which, should you truly be aware, IS insider information.

As others have suggested, it would be relatively simple for you to explain your statement was an opinion and not a statement of fact as it’s presented.

Please advise?

My question below.

“Mr I,

Firstly, i think you’ll find there’s no requirement for the company to report on the condition of P1&P2 at this stage unless there’s a reportable safety incident.

So would you like to retract your statement as a matter of fact that both are thriving OR would you like to admit to holding insider information?

Secondly, i have no further need to disagree with Haywire as he’s conceded on the three points debated, being ;

1. Efficacy & CR’s are relatively common within Car-t trials.

2. Sadly relapse of Cr’s is also relatively common in AML.

3. The Novel target of H Car-T, does not automatically preclude H Car-T from these inherent relapse difficulties.

I expect and hope P1&P2 are in some if not full remission as the historical science would suggest. However i do not know this as fact.

Finally , should the company not be “snapped up” ie sold in July as you’ve claimed it will , hopefully it’ll be an end to your mindless ramping as in my opinion, it’s unhelpful to the cause.”

AIMO

Mr I,

Firstly, i think you’ll find there’s no requirement for the company to report on the condition of P1&P2 at this stage unless there’s a reportable safety incident.

So would you like to retract your statement as a matter of fact that both are thriving OR would you like to admit to holding insider information?

Secondly, i have no further need to disagree with Haywire as he’s conceded on the three points debated, being ;

1. Efficacy & CR’s are relatively common within Car-t trials.

2. Sadly relapse of Cr’s is also relatively common in AML.

3. The Novel target of H Car-T, does not automatically preclude H Car-T from these inherent relapse difficulties.

I expect and hope P1&P2 are in some if not full remission as the historical science would suggest. However i do not know this as fact.

Finally , should the company not be “snapped up” ie sold in July as you’ve claimed it will , hopefully it’ll be an end to your mindless ramping as in my opinion, it’s unhelpful to the cause.

Rest assured when the Clown crew comedy ramping tricycle wheels start rolling, i’ll be here to put a reality stick in its spokes!

Look forward to see your retraction/ qualification on P1&P2 statement.

AIMO

Haywire,

I’m sorry are saying Hemo’s trial is the only one ever with a Novel target ?

Please say yes and I’ll take pleasure educating you.

AIMO

Haywire,

-We agree, it’s not unusual for Car-T trials to demonstrate early efficacy and complete response, CR’s*

-We agree, Durability of response has historically been a major stumbling point for AML Car-T trials.*

-Where we disagree;

You maintain, because Hemo’ Car-T targets FLT-3 in theory, Durability of response should be assured.

Whilst i don’t disagree with the theory, is it reasonable to assume theoretical argument assures a real world result?

I would argue NO and suggest previous trials support my conclusion.

To make my point in very simple terms, ask yourself this question .

Q. Did previous failed Car-T’s designed for AML trial and treatment by well funded large pharmaceuticals, knowingly choose targets likely NOT to prove durability in response?

Well of course the answer is no.

They too targeted new antigens with the promise of a theoretical durable response . Sadly that theory did not translate to real world fact and success.

Real world clinically significant durability of response in AML Car-T trials is only proven over time regardless of the target. That time period I’d argue, closer to one year than six months post treatment and requiring a suitable cohort size.

Yes it’s possible Hemogenyx may succeed where others have failed but they face the same difficulties that have thwarted previous trials and to suggest otherwise as you are, is misleading.

You are peddling theory as a real world fact, before the event.

AIMO

*Argue otherwise and i’ll prove via many independent scientific papers on the subject.

Chris,

Should you wish to check my posting history, you’ll find i have repeatedly and clearly stated my desire for the trial to succeed.

I have also clearly stated i think it possible, although it is equally true, i do not believe it probable.

So let’s be honest and please stop trying to suggest otherwise in your childish attempt to discredit and distract from the science referenced in my original post.

Have a good day.

No more from me on this today.

AIMO

Haywire,

Yes please!

let’s book mark it for retrospective reflection at the end of July.

Let’s see if my analysis, as you describe, which refers to known facts of the specific difficulties associated with r/r AML treatment trials and my assessment that a cohort of 2 or 3 being statistically insufficient to excite bigpharma to “snap up” the company in July, is proven correct or incorrect.

See below.

My earlier post in response to Mr I’s suggestion the company will be “snapped up” in July.

“Mr I,

Would you care to expand on why Hemogenyx could be “snapped up”in July ?

It is relatively common for Car-t trial treatments to initially promote a complete response in AML trials.

Very sadly and specifically in AML, it is also relatively common for that early CR to relapse with return of disease.

So can you please explain why bigpharma would choose to ignore these well known facts and “snap up” Hemogenyx without a reasonable clinically significant proof of durability and a statistically reasonable cohort treated ?

You might need Haywire’s help and many words to try and deflect from the fact;

Early efficacy signal(s) over a minimal cohort within r/r AML trials is unlikely to excite bigpharma.

Feel free to ramp away though, as is your job.

AIMO & DYOR”