Member Info for stu485

Oak,Matt,
Seems I've arrived at this particular debate late in the day and looking at the ferocity on both sides,.. I'm glad I have!

Sea Boy,

Gov' website states, "to have at least 2 effective treatments this year, either in a tablet or capsule form."
Unless I've missed something (could be the case)then we're not going to be one of those 2, which to me is a really important point that's not been conveyed.

I do think we will be considered within the other secondary goal stated;
"also be required to create a pipeline of additional promising novel antivirals for potential deployment in 2022 and beyond"

I'm not trying to nitpick as very much appreciate your input but all should be clear it's not us as a primary goal candidate.

IMO

Dark,
I agree and also find "quiet sinister".
Same , one sided, I'm a jolly Gent' trustworthy character play on the Hemo' board too.

Maybe he is or maybe something else to fathom out and give a wide berth !

IMO

I think the Pod Cast has just ushered in an improved relationship with PI's. What would seal the deal for me would be Vlad putting more skin in the game at the very earliest opportunity.
Vlad ?

IMO

As a vocal critic of what I still believe to be a shambolic release of information throughout the recent announcements, I think it only right and proper that I acknowledge the positives within the Pod Cast.

For me the most significant new information was confirmation that GlobalCo's decision not to take up the CDX "Option" was not through concerns with the science (I paraphrase). Why it's ok to announce that in the Pod Cast but not in previous relevant RNS's, ...reasons could be many and varied but let's move on.

Hopefully future comm's will now have sufficient clarity that some on this board we will never again feel the need to consider supposed insider information from others posting and I for one now looking forward to the next RNS.

IMO

you will need to go through PeterhouseCap to get a response.

I too had no reply to multiple direct emails and only received a reply when I directed them through PeterhouseCap.

unfortunately not. These matters can take a long time to be properly considered.

I think all can see, I have a very strong personal opinion which as a shareholder, I genuinely hope will prove to be unfounded

Should you wish to ask the company a question email PeterHouseCap and request your email is forwarded onto Peter Redmond.

Keep in mind Peter can only provide information that's already in the public domain and made so through RNS announcements

I would imagine most of your questions and concerns relate to aspects which Peter will be unable to answer for the above reason, as were mine.

The only route to the answers I seek is via the FCA whom I've been corresponding with.

I am not publicly suggesting any wrongdoing, the regulator is the body to make such determinations.

info@peterhousecap.com
primary.market.integrity@fca.org.uk

...seems you need a clue! it's not;
have
any
plans
for
further
drawdowns

IMO

...spot the key word you seem to have overlooked.

...Just to add.

I think RM mentioned Q2'ish. Within the context of the discussion ,my feeling was he meant start Q2 and not end Q2.

I've never seen such a delusional bunch of investors who absolutely refuse to accept the facts starring them in the face.
With such an unbalanced board i have to say, ..goodbye and good luck.

IMO

... you think he's been too greedy. For balance it's my strong belief he never had an offer to consider!

This can still get much worse, why ?
I'm not sure information has been disseminated as it should have been. Should that prove to be the case then there will be consequences.

I agree with others that our frustrations should be properly communicated to the company and not aimed at others with different views and opinions.

IMO

..I remain a shareholder and yes happy to.

I thought Hemo were going to get a deal with GlobalCo and anticipated a significant re-rate at that point.

Now i have lost all trust specifically considering the wording of the 1st April RNS and will get out as soon as I think a suitable exit.

Please don't tell me about the greater pipeline etc as I'm not interested.

IMO

The only FACT we know for sure is GlobalCo are not going to take up the option to license.

So the question remains, why not?

Is it more likely GlobalCo’s concluded it’s not a strong enough candidate to support through trial OR as some suggest GlobalCo were trying to short change Hemo on the deal ?

If you think the latter then I suggest your projecting wishful thinking on the actual situation, maybe as you did regarding the question of who would take up the “option”

IMO

The 1st April RNS was in my opinion designed to encourage an incorrect conclusion amongst share holders.
Disingenuous is the most generous description of it that I'd use. I suspect it will be challenged by the regulatory authorities.

For those who believed and promoted their beliefs that GlobalCo were indeed going to take up the "Option", there's no malice from me nor should they feel any shame.

Miranda, despite what some say, we've all done the same at some point and you should not beat yourself up, just learn.
If it helps despite my convictions, I mistakenly held and now looking at a very considerable paper loss of which unlike others , I'm not expecting to fully recover regardless of time.

Good luck all

IMO

the point you're missing has been clearly made , there's no point in continuing this debate.
Good luck.

...give me the number to call of which you're confident they will answer the question and I'll call right now.

I can tell you in advance though, were they to confirm it's GlobalCo who will be taking up the Option, I'd then be in receipt of insider information as it's not been RNS'd... are you seeing the problem yet and who might be confused!?

"what's not clear" ?...Who is going to take up the "Option" to licence.

Can you please point me to any RNS which states it's GlobalCo ? No you can't and that's why it's unclear.

General negotiations where either party may take up the "Option" does not answer the above, so please stop suggesting it does.

IMO

Chris0123
You are correct, we need an answer to the question(s) raised and without it's questionable if AIM rules are being abided to.

My same question to the company was way less polite than yours!

NDA's do not trump the obligation to disclose such information.

IMO