Member Info for stu485

Why wouldn’t the company update Cart-T progress ?

This is they key question at present.

There’s a number of theories as to the delay against target Cart-T IND FDA submission .

1. The process all progressing without issue, the timeframes stretched a little from target.

2. The process encountering some unexpected issues, possibly the need for further quality runs etc.

3. A partnership agreement and expansion of clinical trials requiring more details prior to submission.

Others ??

For me the crux of the matter is, why not communicate which of the above may be the case.

Many LTH’s have suggested a rise in sp prior to any Cart-T IND RNS would be beneficial for obvious reasons.
Were the reason for delay actually a positive ie partnership deal then it would make sense for the company to communicate the same with a subsequent rise is sp. Obviously confidentially would need to be considered.

So, the company choosing not to communicate suggests to me its not a positive situation!

AIMO

JFH
We agree to disagree on the requirement to RNS the need for further quality runs.
I don’t think you’ve understood my point regarding the specific wording of the RNS.

Anyway, at least i do appreciate your thoughts as to why the IND RNS could be delayed.

However even were there a partnership pending, I don’t see why that would delay the FDA submission and hence RNS.
I do understand how it might delay clinical trials, hopefully in a good way.

AIMO

Tilly,
Why do you feel the need to repost the same commentary?Are you trying to encourage newcomers to invest, if not what’s the purpose of the repeat post?

All are awaiting Cart-T IND RNS, why not have some conversation and hopefully researched insights as to why it could be late*

My insight is taken from the PQ3 RNS.
When you read it very carefully you’ll find the company may not be required to RNS the need for further quality runs should they be required. The wording is such that “all tests” is used with reference to FDA submission and not three , which is used only to denote the minimum required.
Maybe they’ve decided more quality runs are required and it’s not a strict requirement to RNS the same given their wording of the PQ3 RNS
AIMO
Ps I too find you attempt at humor unfunny and crass.

JFH,

Thank you.

Finally you admit for all to read the company target was Missed !

Would you go a step further and suggest how that’s particularly disappointing given the placing funds were meant to accelerate the process?

Glad to see a glimpse of reality in an otherwise yawn of a post.

AIMO

…couldn’t agree more.

That tweet Hulver posted makes me feel our hopes might be dashed.

AIMO

My post 9th Feb.“It's a MINIMUM of three runs required and yes of course, Third party is a std requirement.The word Minimum, I anticipate will soon be the topic of conversation !!!! “Pumpky is correct , should there be no issues with PQ runs conducted and third party analysis, then why wouldn’t the company advise the same at least in a RNS reach , given the general concern of investors?Yes I’m sure other IND submission work still to complete but surely this particular aspect’s done given the importance of speed to clinical as VS highlights.AIMO

Nope , different link.

JFH will ask Hulver for it as he’s interested!?

JFH,

If genuinely interested as Hulver to re-post, I’m sure he’ll oblige.

JFH,
It was a very straightforward question.

I don’t mind how fantastical your value provided it’s referenced .

Please try.

Ping,
…and now , would you like to comment on the link!?

I think it’s Hemo & FDA in discussion. Those involved are discussing a problem( Fact ),the link was titled Cart-T.

Appreciate your thoughts ?

AIMO

JFH…what is it worth ?

As your so confident the SP (market!) doesn’t reflect the true value of the company, can you please provide the other reference company details from which you’ve drawn your conclusions ?

Ping,

When you say all is well, would you like to comment on the link Hulver posted?

G14,

A, upon submission, great!
B, upon clearance and into clinc, fantastic!

I would also acknowledge a very impressive job by Hemo’ particularly at B.
I’d be relieved for JFH and this not a cynical comment .

All hypothetical until and unless it arrives, soon.

As to value. Maybe level out at 3.5p at A and 6-8p at B.

Painful…i agree!

Had the gang not ramped the RNS date so hard, many would’ve been more patient, you’d be less pained and the SP less threatened. Hopefully a lesson learnt.
AIMO

Zealot,

I think you’ll find Pumky made a valid point regarding timing of the much lauded RNS.

Many LTH’s repeatedly claimed it would land W1Feb as, in their words ,VS had stated this the target date in a zoom meeting.

For it still to appear will rightly attract comment.

It’s not a one way st.

AIMO

Please report me for quoting the CEO’s RNS statement to highlight a point he himself made!

I’m sure even LSE will struggle with that .

AIMO

Mjng,

“It is important that we move HEMO-CAR-T into the clinic as quickly as possible”
Ref: VS - RNS placing.

Very, very tired of those regurgitating waffle that Cart-T RNS timing is unimportant, especially when the CEO of the company states otherwise.

What is it you know that VS doesn’t?

In my opinion, should anything on CBR come out before Cart-T RNS, it would only be a red flag for Cart-T IND probability.

AIMO

Wow !

Desperation spelt out in many rambling words.

I hope for JFH’s sake that Hemo’ at least deliver the long awaited RNS within the target month of Feb!

AIMO

I’m unsurprised by the vacuous answer.

Mjng,
It seems most are expecting the next RNS to be Cart-T FDA submission and hopefully details of an expanded and accelerated trial enabled by the recent placing funds.

What’s the surprise you mention that we should be expecting?

AIMO

Tilly,
It matters not you or i suggesting IND timing importance or otherwise.

What’s irrefutable, VS has said Cart-T timing to clinic and therefore IND submittal is “important”.
(ref- Placing RNS).

I’d recommend others consider & trust the company statement .

AIMO